FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, two new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions and the second was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, as we noted last week the Supreme Court recently held held oral argument in one case decided by the Federal Circuit and issued an opinion in another. With respect to pending petitions, the Court granted two petitions, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases in light of the Court’s holding in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Also, a new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the ability of a court of appeals to revive a waived argument; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility and Federal Circuit Rule 36; and a brief in opposition was filed in yet another patent case raising questions concerning so-called skinny labels. Finally, the Court denied two petitions, one raising questions related to ripeness of takings claims and the other raising a question related to the on-sale bar to patentability. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in related cases affirming decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released four nonprecedential orders. The first nonprecedential order grants the government’s petition to appeal and denies a cross-petitioner’s petition to appeal. The second nonprecedential order denies another petitioner’s permission to appeal. The third nonprecedential order summarily affirms a judgment. The fourth nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders ruling on petitions to appeal and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court affirmed as to a direct appeal and reversed as to a cross-appeal in a patent case. Notably, Judge Stark dissented in part from the majority’s decision to reverse as to the cross-appeal. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the third nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order granting a motion for summary affirmance and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument and issued opinions, respectively, in two cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to pending petitions, three new petitions have been filed in two patent cases and a pro se case, a brief in opposition and a reply brief was filed in case raising a question related to certification of questions of law, and another reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case. Finally, since our last update the Court has denied two petitions, one raising questions related to recusal and the other raising a question related to patent infringement. Here are the details.

Today the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the summary affirmance.

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part a case involving an interference between patent applications related to CRISPR-Cas9. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases, four Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Three of the nonprecedential opinions come in international trade cases, two on appeal from the Department of Commerce and one from the Court of International Trade. The other four nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.