FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Vidal. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precluded judicial review of certain factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and veterans case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; and the Court denied a petition in a government contract case. Here are the details. 

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two precedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, dismissed-in-part, and remanded a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday and later this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Four of the orders dismiss appeals, while one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgments, and erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Northern District of California a case where Apple and other companies are challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s so-called Fintiv factors and, in particular, in the decision whether to institute inter partes review proceedings the role of the pendency of district-court infringement litigation involving the same patents. In the second opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. In the third opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a reply brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, a new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case and another in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and a reply brief was filed in a trade case. Here are the details. 

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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a veterans case, one challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances, and two in pro se cases. The government waived its right to respond in a contract case, and a private party waived its right to respond in the case addressing the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. Finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.