FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, we are waiting for the Court to issue its decision. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; one reply brief was filed in a trade case; seven amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a takings case, a veterans case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, raising a question related to claims of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to marking, attorneys fees, eligibility, and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in patent cases, raising questions related to marking, exceptional case status, and eligibility. The Federal Circuit also issued an invitation for a response to a petition in a patent case raising questions related to prior art and the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.  

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and five nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case and, notably, includes an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. The other precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Three of the five nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a district court’s judgment with respect to validity and infringement in a patent case; the nonprecedential opinion affirms a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating all claims of a patent; and today’s order also dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion involves an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying the appellant compensation for hearing loss. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the appellee, a veteran. The court also received two new petitions raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claims, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the grounds for inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to ­­means-plus-function limitations and transfers. The court also denied five petitions for rehearing raising issues including the standard for granting a motion to seal court records, choice of law, estoppel arising from inter partes review, and claim construction. Here are the details.