As previewed on this blog, an important case that was argued this week at the Federal Circuit is Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. This case involves a dispute regarding the correct application of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which prohibits a petitioner in an inter partes review that results in a final written decision from asserting in a patent infringement case that a patent claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” A panel of the Federal Circuit including Judges Prost, Newman, and Bryson heard oral arguments in this case on Monday. Here is our argument recap.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a patent case, a Vaccine Act case, and a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a patent case, a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued two nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
It was a busy week at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Three amicus briefs in favor of the respondent were filed in one of the four granted cases, Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. With respect to petitions, multiple petitions were denied, two new petitions were filed, several party briefs were filed, and nine amicus briefs were filed in one case, Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC. We have the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a case involving a payment dispute with the United States Bureau of Reclamation under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential order denying a petition for writ of mandamus in a patent case, and three nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions, three new responses to petitions, one request from the Federal Circuit for a response, and one denial of a petition. As a reminder, pending and recently-decided petitions and related documents may be found on our En Banc Petitions page.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report includes a New York Times article highlighting the Federal Circuit’s holding last Thursday that the appointment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s judges is unconstitutional, a comment by the Brookings Institution on the Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States case pending before the Supreme Court, and a report by Bloomberg News on the Federal Circuit’s affirming of a trial court decision tossing a $2.5 billion verdict against Gilead Sciences Inc. in a patent case.
Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential modified and reissued opinion in case challenging the amount of a grant awarded by the Department of the Treasury. Related to the second opinion, the court also issued two nonprecedential orders granting panel rehearing for the limited purpose of substituting the revised opinion for the previously issued opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
This week the Federal Circuit will hold 15 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 54 cases. One notable case being argued is Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company. It is the only case with an amicus brief being argued this month. As we previously reported, another case with an amicus brief that had been scheduled for oral argument this week—Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International—settled.
Late on Friday the Federal Circuit issued two precedential orders in patent cases and one nonprecedential order in a patent case. These orders represent the immediate fall out from the Federal Circuit’s opinion late on Thursday in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that the Secretary of Commerce’s appointment of Administrative Patent Judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (You can find this blog’s report on that decision here.) On Friday, the Federal Circuit ruled in two cases that the appellants forfeited this same challenge by not raising it in their opening briefs, but instead only in a post-briefing motion or notice of supplemental authority. In the third case, the court canceled this week’s oral argument, vacated the PTAB’s decision, and remanded the case because the appellant did raise the Appointments Clause challenge in its opening brief. Here is the text of the orders.