FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. All four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one remands a case, one summarily affirms a decision by a lower court, and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals. 

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. 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 preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and one summary affirmance. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, two transfer cases, while the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders and summary affirmance. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one summary affirmance. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in trademark cases on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, while the other two come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance. 

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one sua sponte vacating a preliminary injunction and the other dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a case out of the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas to the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas; four nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals; and two summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the nonprecedential order vacating the preliminary injunction, and the precedential order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, along with links to the summary affirmances and dismissals. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a response brief was filed in a pending en banc case raising questions regarding how to establish standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. As for pending petitions, a new petition has been filed in a patent case; a response has been filed to a petition raising multiple questions regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury; and an amicus brief has been filed in support of a petition raising a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the details.

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

• an article arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
• a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
• a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”