FedCircuitBlog

CAFC Affirms Improper Venue Ruling in Victoria’s Secrets’ Favor – On IPWatchDog, Matthew Schutte posted an article reporting on a Federal Circuit decision to affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on improper venue.

Judge Albright will Keep the Google and Apple Cases – In a post on PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch offers his thoughts on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision not to order Judge Albright to transfer certain patent cases.

Arthrex-Based TTAB Challenge Meets Dubious Federal Circuit Panel – Kyle Jahner reports for Bloomberg that “[a] piano company trying to revive its trademark encountered a Federal Circuit skeptical of its argument.”

Shell, ARCO, Texaco, Unocal Win $100 Million WWII Cleanup Appeal – In this article on BloombergLaw.com, Daniel Seiden reports on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shell Oil Co. v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting this morning. This month the Federal Circuit is again providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene five panels to consider about 23 cases. Of these 23 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 17. Of the argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs. All four are Tucker Act cases presenting the same issues. Indeed, the court consolidated the cases, and they will be argued at same time with 40 minutes of argument allocated to each side. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Four cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued at the Federal Circuit next week: Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Here is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a patent case over a partial dissent by Judge Dyk. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims in a tax case. 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. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a taking case asking questions concerning choice of law, the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in a Tucker Act case, and respondents filed response briefs in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an international trade case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 summary affirmances.

The Arthrex Fix Is No Fix At All – In an article posted on iam-media.com, Paul Morinville reports that “[t]he long-awaited SCOTUS Arthrex decision does not provide the solution to the problem at the heart of the case.”

Texas Court Bounces Triller/TikTok Patent Dispute to California – Chris Cooke wrote an article on completemusicupdate.com reporting about how a Texas district judge sent a patent case between Triller and TikTok to the courts in California, perhaps due to criticism by the Federal Circuit.

Are 5% of All U.S. Issued Patents Presumed to Be Unenforceable Under Laches Due to Their Priority Claims? – On IPWatchDog.com, Kate Gaudry reports on the “potential impacts” of the recent Federal Circuit case Hyatt v Hirshfeld concerning prosecution laches.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”

Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”

SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.

Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”