FedCircuitBlog

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.

On Wednesday, November 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. The Court granted review to consider 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 preview.

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 will hear oral arguments next week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in the same patent case, and a reply brief was filed in support of a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Two opinions address appeals from inter partes reexaminations before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Each of those appeals had a corresponding related appeal, which was subsequently dismissed as moot in a corresponding nonprecedential opinion. Finally, the fifth nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal regarding veterans’ disability benefits. The first nonprecedential order summarily affirms a judgment, another transfers an appeal to a district court, and the final two are dismissals. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which inspired an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, vacates a district court’s judgment of invalidity in a patent case. One nonprecedential opinion addresses subject matter jurisdiction; another addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious or as anticipated; and the third also addresses a patent appeal regarding obviousness. One order grants a motion to remand a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and one order transfers an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the government’s reply brief was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in another pro se case, and a brief in opposition was filed in response to a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in two employment cases, two veterans cases, a patent case, and a pro se case, and the Court also dismissed the petitions in four pro se cases. 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 about the “high-stakes patent dispute between VirnetX and Apple” highlighting “VirnetX’s new petition asking the Supreme Court to review two important Federal Circuit rulings”; and
• an article discussing how the U.S. Supreme Court “declined to rethink the court’s Alice and Mayo rulings on patent eligibility.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues. One order transfers a case to an Illinois district court, one order dismisses a case, and two are Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order transferring a case, and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissal.

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, two new petitions were filed with the Court. One came in a patent case addressing both joinder in inter partes review proceedings and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The other came in a case addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, three waivers of right to respond were filed in the same patent case, and a brief in opposition was filed in another patent case addressing joint inventorship. Finally, the Court denied nine petitions in three patent cases, a trade case, and five pro se cases. 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, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.