FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination of no infringement and a lack of domestic industry as to one patent and, with respect to an expired patent, vacated and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss due to the patent’s expiration. Notably, in the course of analyzing infringement of the first patent, the court highlighted that “a computer-implemented claim drawn to a functional capability requires some showing that the accused computer-implemented device is programmed or otherwise configured, without modification, to perform the claimed function when in operation.” The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case, the appellant filed his opening en banc brief. In it, he argues on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of a request for a default order. The Federal Circuit also released two errata and a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion to lift a stay and remand to the Court of Federal Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the errata.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article commenting on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision that “only humans can be considered inventors under current U.S. patent laws”;
• an article about how the Federal Circuit “let a Turkish steel pipe producer off the hook in a years-long anti-dumping duties dispute”; and
• a third article about the Federal Circuit’s role in litigation surrounding property flooding in Houston during Hurricane Harvey.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the court dismissed-in-part for lack of jurisdiction as to a cancelled claim and affirmed-in-part the Board’s determination that the remaining challenged claims are not patentable because they are obvious. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal as frivolous; one summarily affirms; and one grants an unopposed motion to transfer an appeal from the Northern District of Texas to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 Judgment.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a disposition in a veterans case, a brief filed by the government in a patent case raising a question related to the Appointments Clause, and an upcoming argument in another patent case raising questions related to standing. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it affirms a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in LaBonte v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, LaBonte filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims to challenge a denial by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records of his claim for a retroactive medical retirement. The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed Mr. LaBonte’s claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the Board did not have authority to grant LaBonte the relief he was seeking. In an opinion authored by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article arguing “[a] review of the Federal Circuit’s motion panel assignment procedures makes clear that a party can time its filing to take advantage of the makeup of a current motion panel or wait for a future panel [that] has more judges considered favorable on the issue of venue mandamus”;
• an earlier article by the same authors arguing that “what is often portrayed as a rogue district court at odds with a supervising appellate court is in fact two things quite different–yet familiar to patent practitioners”; and
• a third article addressing the Federal Circuit’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to grant Director Review of decisions not to institute inter partes review and post grant review.