FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case involving a penalty levied due to alleged noncompliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a district court’s award of attorney’s fees and double costs. The Federal Circuit also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions of the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and another patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing eligible subject matter. Additionally, the court issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in a government contract case involving a bid protest. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received seven new amicus briefs in a case that has been granted certiorari, Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• The Court received five new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new response brief was filed with the Court in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
• In petition cases, the Court received six new amicus briefs in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, two new amicus briefs in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and one new amicus brief in Oracle America, Inc. v. United States.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case concerning disaster-assistance funds distributions from FEMA. The court also released six nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• U.S. v. Arthrex: Is Historical Practice of the USPTO Relevant? – One factor that the Supreme Court may consider in determining the appropriate remedy if necessary for the appointment of administrative patent judges is the historical practice of the USPTO.
• Apple Faces Dubious Federal Circuit on Patent Ownership Argument – Judges Chen and Linn of the Federal Circuit seemed to doubt the interpretation of the contract language that Apple is relying on to challenge Omni MedSci’s ownership of the allegedly infringed patents.
• Federal Circuit on TM Licensing: We’re Going to Enforce the Terms – The Federal Circuit held that the Army properly refused Authentic Apparel’s proposal to make certain Army-branded items, including the expansion of a clothing line featuring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an alleged government contract case and a nonprecedential information in a patent case. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgements.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched patent case, United States v. Arthrex. As we previewed a couple days prior to argument, two main issues were considered by the Court. First, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are principal or inferior officers. And second, if APJs are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. Here are the details.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.