FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases and one pro se case. Additionally, six waivers of right to respond, three briefs in opposition, and two reply briefs were filed with the Court. Finally, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two in pro se cases. The court also released two nonprecedential orders, one granting a motion to withdraw a petition and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and a link to the second order.

Today the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinion in pro se cases. The court also released three nonprecedential orders. One affirms a dismissal in a pro se case, one grants a summary affirmance, and one grants a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, the introduction to the order affirming the dismissal, and links to the other orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case and six nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases. The court also released five nonprecedential orders: five summary affirm appeals and one grants a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. 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:

• a blog post providing an analysis of the oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, which “involved a provision in the federal Lanham Act that directs the Patent and Trademark Office . . . to refuse to register any mark that identifies ‘a particular living individual’”;
• an article discussing “an opinion dealing largely with how much a patent owner can rely on information and belief-based allegations rather than facts”; and
• an article calling a district court opinion “a decision based on ignorance of patent law that must be overturned.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. 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 discussing how a “California software company has warned that a venue dispute it lost at the Federal Circuit . . . has opened the door ‘for improper venue to be rectified by new facts arising any time throughout litigation’”;
• an article about “more than half a dozen amicus briefs” urging the Federal Circuit “to keep the [design patent] law as is in order to avoid major disruptions”; and
• an article about the future of AI, highlighting the Federal Circuit’s holding that “AI did not qualify as a human.”

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. In this case, the Court is considering whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a trademark case, Vidal v. Elster. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a trade case and a pro se case; an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing joinder in inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a trade case and in two pro se cases. Here are the details.