FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. The Court also requested the Solicitor General file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case raising a question regarding standing to challenge the validity of patents. Additionally, three new petitions were filed with the Court: two in cases appealing decisions from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a patent case. Moreover, one amicus brief was submitted in a patent case; three briefs in opposition were filed in trade, employment, and veterans cases; one waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case; three petitions were denied; and one petition was dismissed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in related cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion addresses standing to bring takings claims against the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The second opinion also addresses standing but also subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two came in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two came in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The last came in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. As for still-pending petitions, three new petitions were filed: one in a patent case raising questions related to eligible subject matter and two filed by pro se petitioners. Waivers of right to respond were filed in two cases: the patent case already mentioned raising questions related to eligible subject matter and another patent case also concerning eligibility. Finally, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case that raises a question regarding the appealability of a discretionary denial of inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and addresses issues related to spoliation of evidence. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and addresses issues related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of New York and addresses issues related to eligible subject matter. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The first opinion addresses issues related to the on-sale bar for a design patent. The second opinion addresses a district court’s finding after a bench trial that claims were invalid for failing to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion in this second case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in an employment case and a veterans disability case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions have been filed, both in patent cases. In addition, five amicus briefs were submitted in a case presenting a challenge to the Chevron doctrine. Also, the government waived its right right to respond in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case and concerns a district court’s refusal to seal certain documents. Notably, Judge Mayer wrote an opinion dissenting from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the case. The second comes in a government contract case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veterans cases. Finally, the court released a precedential order transferring an employment case to the District of Maryland. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Guest Post by Jason Rantanen

In its 2021 Arthrex decision, the Supreme Court rewrote the procedural process that Congress created for reviewing decisions by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges.1 Rather than directly appealing to the Federal Circuit (or filing an action in the Eastern District of Virginia), a party that is dissatisfied with the outcome at the PTAB can petition the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the Director) for rehearing.2 This post summarizes some of my thoughts on the effects of Arthrex on PTAB decision-making, especially when PTAB decisions are appealed to the Federal Circuit. Overall, I’m skeptical that Arthrex presents a great opportunity for the Director to engage in patent policymaking. Given the way that United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) review is structured, there’s relatively little room for the Director to engage in policy-shaping through review of PTAB decisions. There are many other ways in which the Director can influence patent policy, and these are likely to be more promising paths than exercising direct oversight over individual PTAB decisions.