The Federal Circuit decides appeals addressing patent law, government contracts, trade disputes, tax appeals, suits against the federal government, veterans’ benefits, and federal employment cases. Federal Circuitry takes a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit. Our <a href="/statistics" target="_self">Federal Circuit Statistics</a> empirically analyze appeal timing, outcomes, and other quantifiable aspects of the Court.  Our <a href="/trackers/en-banc-tracker" target="_self">En Banc Tracker</a> shows pending and past petitions where the Court has called for a response. Our <a href="/trackers/substantive-orders-tracker" target="_self">Substantive Order Tracker</a> allows you to search for less-discussed and hard-to-find orders that affect practice before the Court. Check back weekly for <a href="/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit" target="_self">Last Week in the Federal Circuit</a> and monthly for our <a href="/topics/oral-argument-recap" target="_self">Oral Argument Recap</a>.<h2>About Morrison Foerster's Appellate + Supreme Court Practice</h2>Morrison Foerster’s market-leading <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/appellate-supreme-court.html">Appellate and Supreme Court practice</a> wins appeals with deep strategic thinking, clear writing, and forceful oral advocacy. Our work spans the Supreme Court of the United States, every federal court of appeals, and state appellate courts in California, New York, and elsewhere. And we handle appeals in every area of law—from intellectual property to class actions, arbitration to antitrust, environmental law to ERISA. We are consistently ranked as one of the top appellate and Supreme Court practices in the country by Chambers USA and Legal 500 USA, and our practice has been named to the National Law Journal’s Appellate Hot List multiple times.<h2>About Morrison Foerster's Patent Litigation Practice</h2>We are a global <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/patent-litigation.html">IP litigation</a> powerhouse, dedicated to fiercely protecting innovation in high-stakes and complex patent litigation matters. While we are skilled at resolving disputes short of trial, some cases do see the inside of a courtroom. When they do, our trial lawyers stand out for their superb knowledge of patent law, experience with judges in high-volume patent venues, facility with explaining cutting-edge technologies to juries, and history defending against patent assertion entities and other habitual plaintiffs. From cross-border matters and multiparty disputes to global litigation management and NPE litigations, we develop novel solutions to protecting and enforcing some of the most prized patents in the world.<h2>About Morrison Foerster</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

federal-circuitry-blog-promo-tile.jpg

Federal Circuitry

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. Chambers USA reports Brian is a “‘terrific’ practitioner with a ‘warm and enthusiastic’ approach to matters.”Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience with appeals in the Federal Circuit, praising him as “an invaluable advocate in patent matters.” (Chambers USA) He has argued more than 15  times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Brian excels at applying legal principles to complex technologies in a clear, compelling way. He has handled appeals in a myriad of industries, including mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, and software. Brian is an Editor of Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/">Federal Circuitry</a> blog, which takes a data-driven approach to analyzing the Federal Circuit and its decisions.Brian also briefs and argues cases in appellate courts nationwide. He has argued multiple times in the D.C., Second, Ninth and, Eleventh. His arguments include significant victories in class action appeals and in appeals for leading financial services companies. For example, Brian argued and won a D.C. Circuit appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the retroactivity of part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of Brian’s win, the SEC had to change its enforcement practices against certain securities industry professionals.A former law clerk for the United States Supreme Court, Brian has authored many briefs in that Court, including on important constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. He often represents clients’ interests in amicus briefs in significant Supreme Court cases affecting the business community.Leading publications have recognized Brian for his appellate skills. Legal 500 US recommends him for appellate litigation, and the National Law Journal named Brian a “Minority 40 under 40.”Brian dedicates significant time to pro bono matters. He argued and won two significant appeals—in the Second and Ninth Circuits—obtaining reversals of judgments that had denied private rights of action under the Child Welfare Act. Brian also led the Morrison & Foerster team who co-counseled a successful Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s imposition of a “life without the possibility of parole” sentence to a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime.For years, Brian chaired the ABA’s seven-person Standing Committee for Amicus Curiae Briefs. He served on the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s amicus committee and co-chaired of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s amicus committee. Brian served as an Appellate Lawyer Representative for the Ninth Circuit. Brian also serves on the Board of Directors for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Before entering private practice, Brian clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He also clerked for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer on the Ninth Circuit and Judge David F. Levi on the Eastern District of California.While in law school, Brian served as managing editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review, and was elected to the Order of the Coif.<h4>Representative Oral Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/220114-broadcom-corporation-v-renesas-matsui" target="_self">Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation</a> (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed multiple appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision and several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to an ITC investigation initiated by Broadcom involving systems-on-chip powering automobile infotainment systems.</li><li>Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del.) Represented Chugai in patent litigation involving Chugai’s revolutionary antibody recycling technology. The team secured a $775 million for Chugai hours before jury selection and opening statements at trial.</li><li><a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/210706-cr-bard-v-medline-industries.html">C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc </a>(Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/200515-william-paulus-v-ocera-therapeutics-inc.html">William Paulus v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc. </a>(13:25) (9th Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal in a putative shareholder class action involving a tender offer.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/190507-arch-development-corp-v-osi-pharmaceuticals-llc.html">ARCH Development Corp. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC </a>(12:40) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal involving the invalidation of patent claims directed to cancer treatment methods.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/20190805-neev-v-alcon-lensx-inc.html">Neev v. Alcon LenSx, Inc. </a>(13:31) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal involving claim construction and non-infringement issues in a suit involving surgical lasers.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/200410-kurtz-v-costco.html">Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation </a>(9:23) (2d Cir.) Successfully petitioned for review of a class certification decision, then argued and obtained a remand for the district court to reconsider its certification decision, and an eventual reversal on an injunctive class certification decision.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/161117-gregory-bartko-v-sec.html">Gregory Bartko v. SEC </a>(0:53) (D.C. Cir.) Successfully argued and obtained precedential ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not retroactively apply Dodd-Frank’s industry-wide sanctions on securities professionals for certain securities violations.</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/170113-monkeymedia-inc-v-buena-vista-home-entertainment.html">Monkeymedia, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment </a>(12:35) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal involving the invalidation of patent claims directed to the transmission of video content, including over the Internet.</li><li>New York State Citizens’ Coalition v. Velez (2d Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal in which the Second Circuit recognized an implied private right of action under the Child Welfare Act for parents of children in foster care.</li></ul><h4>Speaking Engagements</h4><ul><li>“Federal Circuit Practice: Cross-Cutting Practice Considerations Across the Court’s Diverse Jurisdiction,” Federal Circuit Bar Association, Bench & Conference, June 22, 2021</li><li>“Effective and Persuasive Brief Writing”, PLI’s Appellate Advocacy 2018, April 30, 2019 and April 19, 2018</li><li>"The 18th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute," Advanced Patent Law Institute, December 15, 2017</li></ul><h4>Publications</h4><ul><li>Supreme Court Preserves (Again) Inter Partes Review Despite Finding Constitutional Violation,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, June 20, 2021</li><li>“Close Enough: Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Specific Personal Jurisdiction, ” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, March 2021</li><li>“Once More Into the Jurisdictional Morass: Supreme Court Grapples With Specific Jurisdiction at Oral Argument in Ford Cases,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, October 2020</li><li>“Fun with Numbers from the Federal Circuit’s First Three Months of Telephonic Arguments,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, July 2020</li><li> “What’s Changing at the Remote Fed. Circ.,” Law360, May 6, 2020</li><li>“Supreme Court IP Decision Preserves Inter Partes Review Process,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 24, 2018</li><li>“The Federal Circuit Goes Remote,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 14, 2020</li><li>“Do We Already Know the Federal Circuit’s Final Answer in Arthrex?” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, March 2020</li><li>“Start Your Engines: The U.S. Supreme Court Will Yet Again Review the Constitutional Limits of Personal Jurisdiction in a Pair of Cases Involving Ford Motor Company,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 21, 2020</li><li>“All or Nothing: Supreme Court Prohibits PTAB From Partially Instituting AIA Petitions Challenging Patents,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 25, 2018</li><li>“Supreme Court IP Decision Preserves Inter Partes Review Process,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 24, 2018</li><li>The Incredible Shrinking Doctrine of Specific Personal Jurisdiction: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California," Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, June 20, 2017</li><li>"Reaffirming Personal Jurisdiction Limits At High Court," Law360, June 1, 2017</li><li>"Gone, Like A Freight-Train: The U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Longstanding Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell," Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, May 31, 2017</li><li>"Here We Go Again: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Personal Jurisdiction Cases," Law360, April 27, 2017</li><li>“Why the Supreme Court Must Revisit Personal Jurisdiction,” Law360, February 1, 2017</li><li>“What Part Did You Not Understand? Recent State-Court Decisions Require the U.S. Supreme Court to Address Yet Again – The Constitutional Limits on Personal Jurisdiction,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 23, 2017</li><li>“Supreme Court Defers to Patent Office on IPR Procedure, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, June 20, 2016</li><li>“Supreme Court Continues Focus on IP,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert and re-published in IPFrontline, May 2, 2016</li><li>MoFo IP Newsletter, April 2016, April 21, 2016</li><li>“Will the Supreme Court Put the Brakes on the IPR Trend? Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 19, 2016</li><li>“Will the Supreme Court Save Business Method Patents? Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 8, 2014</li><li>“Don’t Bet on Finding Personal Jurisdiction Where the Injury is Felt; the Supreme Court Further Restricts the Scope of Specific Personal Jurisdiction: Walden v. Fiore,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, February 25, 2014</li><li>“An Important Victory for Airlines in Defamation Case,” Law360, January 30, 2014</li><li>“Airlines Are Entitled to Immunity under the ATSA Unless Statements Are Materially False,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 28, 2014</li><li>“The Supreme Court Curtails General Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent Corporations: Daimler AG v. Bauman,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 14, 2014</li><li>“Supreme Court to Decide Whether Inducement of Patent Infringement Requires That a Single Entity Be Liable for Direct Infringement Requires That a Single Entity Be Liable for Direct Infringement,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, January 10, 2014</li><li>“More Than Another Alien Tort Statute Case: The Supreme Court May Limit Personal Jurisdiction ,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, October 21, 2013</li><li>“ATSA Immunity: Supreme Court Grants Cert to Decide Bounds for Applying Immunity Under the Aviation Transportation Security Act,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, June 18, 2013</li><li>“A Fractured Federal Circuit Creates More Questions Than Answers: CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., No. 2011-1301,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, May 13, 2013</li><li>“The Supreme Court Again Revisits (And May Rein In) Personal Jurisdiction: Two Cases Now Up Next Term,” Morrison & Foerster Client Alert, April 29, 2013</li><li>“The Supreme Court Limits Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants: A Potential End to the Stream of Commerce Theory,” June 30, 2011</li><li>“The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects ‘Extraterritorial’ Application Of the Securities Exchange Act: An Analysis of Morrison v. NAB,” BNA’s Corporate Counsel Weekly, October 6, 2010</li></ul>

matsui_brian_blog_150x150.png

matsui_brian_common_640x280.jpg

matsui_brian_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

matsui_brian_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

matsui_brian_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For nearly 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience in patent appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has argued more than 10 times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Brian excels at applying significant legal principles to complex technologies in a way that distills them for the Court. He has done so for companies in a myriad of industries, including mobile device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, memory manufacturers, movie studios, and software companies.

Brian Matsui is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. For nearly 20 years, Brian has been a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals nationwide. Clients turn to Brian for his substantial experience in patent appeals in the Federal Circuit. He has argued more than 10 times in that Court, winning appeals from both district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Brian excels at applying significant legal principles to complex technologies in a way that distills them for the Court. He has done so for companies in a myriad of industries, including mobile device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, memory manufacturers, movie studios, and software companies.

Brian R. Matsui

Seth Lloyd, a member of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, has briefed dozens of appeals in federal and state courts of appeals nationwide. Seth has presented oral arguments in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Federal Circuit, as well as in the New Jersey Appellate Division.Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has authored successful briefs for both patentees and defendants on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to pharmaceuticals to computer hardware and software. His practice includes appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. Seth also has argued five times in the Federal Circuit. His winning arguments include a successful reversal of three PTAB decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Seth is co-chair of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Administrative Law & Regulatory Committee. And he is an Editor of Morrison Foerster’s <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/" target="_blank">Federal Circuitry</a> blog, which takes a data-driven approach to analyzing the Federal Circuit and its decisions.Seth regularly practices in the United States Supreme Court. He has drafted petitions and amicus briefs at the certiorari stage, as well as party and amicus briefs at the merits stage. Among his successes at the U.S. Supreme Court, Seth helped secure unanimous reversal of the Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to grant full faith and credit to a lesbian couple’s Georgia adoption judgment. Seth also moots members of the bar for Supreme Court arguments through the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute and is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court.Seth’s clients and peers recognize his expertise. Legal 500 named Seth a Key Lawyer; Super Lawyers called him a Rising Star; and Best Lawyers in America added him to its Ones to Watch list, all for appellate practice. Seth is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court. Seth also practices in the United States Supreme Court. He has drafted petitions and amicus briefs at the certiorari stage, as well as party and amicus briefs at the merits stage.Before joining Morrison Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he worked on two successful certiorari petitions and one successful merits case through Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.Seth also holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in electrical engineering from Stanford University. During his graduate studies, he received the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, published 10 peer-reviewed articles, and co-invented the subject matter of five U.S. patents.<h4>Appellate Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-renesas-electronics-v-broadcom-corporation" target="_self">Renesas Electronics Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.</a> (00:10) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to electronic device claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170609-netlist-inc-v-diablo-technologies" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc.</a> (02:56) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won reversal for owner of computer memory patents in appeals from three consolidated inter partes reviews</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200610-google-llc-v-netlist-inc" target="_self">Google LLC v. Netlist, Inc.</a> (13:15) (Fed. Cir.) Argued and won affirmance for owner of computer memory patents in consolidated appeals from decade-long reexamination</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220309-apple-inc-v-mph-technologies" target="_self">Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy</a> (00:16) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for inter partes review petitioner in challenge to computer security claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180808-netlist-inc-v-sandisk-llc" target="_self">Netlist, Inc. v. SanDisk LLC</a> (01:53) (Fed. Cir.) Argued for patent owner in consolidated appeals raising APA challenges to inter partes review decisions</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/201026-nicole-k-v-stigdon" target="_self">Nicole K. v. Stigdon</a> (00:16) (7th Cir.) Argued for children in Indiana foster care raising constitutional due process claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200306-strike-3-holdings" target="_self">Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe</a> (21:40) (D.C. Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending an order refusing a subpoena to unmask an internet subscriber’s identity</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161118-harris-v-mangum" target="_self">Harris v. Mangum</a> (00:02) (9th Cir.) Argued as court-appointed amicus defending indigent prisoner’s right to a guardian ad litem</li></ul><h4>Additional Representative Matters</h4><ul><li>Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir.) Successfully defended ITC’s determination of no Section 337 violation in case involving multiple patents directed to system-on-chip technology for automobile infotainment systems</li><li>Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) Successfully beat back defendant’s push for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description on pharmaceutical genus claims, ultimately helping to secure a $775 million settlement for the patent owner</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal of district court judgment of non-infringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving Bard’s infringement case on three patents</li><li>Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (3d Cir.) Successfully defended trial victory for breach of patent licensing agreement and further won judgment entitling Washington University to prejudgment interest</li><li>Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. (Fed. Cir.) Secured reversal for Nevro of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li>Federal National Mortgage Association v. Zabriskie (9th Cir.) Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li>Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (S. Ct.) Represented U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others as amici supporting respondent in unanimous affirmance of Fair Debt Collection Act decision</li><li>BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li>C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur for petitioner of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness for patents to medical device technology</li><li>Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc. (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal of securities fraud case for failure to adequately plead falsity</li><li>Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured dismissal because asserted patents claimed unpatentable subject matter</li><li>Sam Francis Foundation v. Christie’s, Inc. (S. Ct.) Successfully preserved Sotheby’s en banc win at the Ninth Circuit based on the dormant Commerce Clause</li><li>Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Secured total victory of noninfringement for Genentech</li><li>Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. (New York Appellate Division, First Department) Secured reversal in major shareholder challenge to corporate acquisition</li><li>V.L. v. E.L. (S. Ct.) As counsel for children’s guardian ad litem, secured reversal of Alabama Supreme Court’s refusal to grant full faith and credit to Georgia judgment recognizing lesbian mother as legal parent</li></ul>

lloyd_seth_blog_150x150.png

lloyd_seth_common_640x280.jpg

lloyd_seth_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lloyd_seth_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lloyd_seth_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Seth Lloyd is an associate in Morrison & Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice with broad experience briefing and arguing appeals. Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has been a primary author of successful briefs on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to chemistry to computer hardware and software. He also has successfully argued multiple times in that Court, including obtaining reversal of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School and also holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University.

Seth Lloyd is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice with broad experience briefing and arguing appeals. Seth has particular experience in patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. He has been a primary author of successful briefs on a wide range of technologies, from medical devices to chemistry to computer hardware and software. He also has successfully argued multiple times in that Court, including obtaining reversal of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in a consolidated appeal for a computer memory designer. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Seth served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit. He earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School and also holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University.

Seth W. Lloyd

Sam Goldstein, a member of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, handles appeals and critical motions in federal and state courts across the country.Sam’s practice spans many areas of law, including patent appeals in the Federal Circuit as well as appeals involving arbitration, class actions, copyright, employment law, securities, trademark and the False Claims Act. He has also prepared certiorari petitions and amicus briefs for the Supreme Court of the United States. Sam has presented oral argument in the Ninth Circuit.Sam contributes to MoFo’s appellate blogs: Left Coast Appeals, which keeps tabs on the Ninth Circuit, and Federal Circuitry, which takes a data-driven approach to analyzing the Federal Circuit and its decisions.Before joining Morrison Foerster, Sam served as a law clerk for then-Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.Sam earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, finishing second in his class. He was an articles editor for the Stanford Law Review, a lead editor for the Stanford Technology Law Review, and a member of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. During law school, he interned in the Appellate Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Sam received his A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University in chemistry and physics.Sam is admitted to practice in California and the District of Columbia.

goldstein_samuel_blog_150x150.png

goldstein_samuel_common_640x280.jpg

goldstein_samuel_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

goldstein_samuel_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

goldstein_samuel_social_600x600.jpg

Sam Goldstein is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. Sam’s practice focuses on complex appellate matters, including patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Sam served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sam earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he was an articles editor for the Stanford Law Review, and his A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University in chemistry and physics.

Sam Goldstein is an associate in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. Sam’s practice focuses on complex appellate matters, including patent appeals before the Federal Circuit. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Sam served as a law clerk for Judge Richard G. Taranto of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sam earned his J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he was an articles editor for the Stanford Law Review, and his A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University in chemistry and physics.

Samuel Benjamin Goldstein

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/statistics">Federal Circuit Statistics</a> empirically analyze quantifiable aspects of the Court. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/trackers/en-banc-tracker">En Banc Tracker</a> highlights pending and past petitions. Our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/trackers/substantive-orders-tracker">Substantive Order Tracker</a> allows you to search less-discussed orders. Check back weekly for <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/last-week-in-the-federal-circuit" target="_self">Last Week in the Federal Circuit</a> and monthly for our <a href="https://federalcircuitry.mofo.com/topics/oral-argument-recap" target="_self">Oral Argument Recap</a>.Follow us on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/Fed_Circuitry" target="_blank">@Fed_Circuitry</a> and check out our sister blog, <a href="https://leftcoast.mofo.com/" target="_blank">Left Coast Appeals</a>, to keep tabs on the Ninth Circuit.

fed-circuitry-welcome.jpg

fed-circuitry-welcome

Announcements

Welcome to Federal Circuitry

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights into all things Ninth Circuit.

Left Coast Appeals

Timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

MoFo Life Sciences

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contract Insights

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog, covering federal circuit statistics, pending & past petitions, order tracking, and more.

Federal Circuitry

Federal Circuit Blog - News & Statistics | Federal Circuitry

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

Federal Circuitry Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Federal Circuitry. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Processing All Things Federal Circuit

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Federal Circuitry- Statistics

Statistics

Blog - Trackers

Many petitions for rehearing are filed; only the smallest handful are granted. Rather than track every filed petition, we track those that have a chance. Our database tracks petitions for rehearing once the Federal Circuit has called for a response (CFR). A CFR is the first real indication that the Court might have interest in the petition, as it indicates that at least one judge on the Court may be taking a second look. Our En Banc Tracker allows you to see the amount of time it takes for various cases to get a CFR, and you can sift through the data to see what types of cases have captured the potential attention of the Court. Our data goes back to January 2020.<div data-reactroot=""><span class="rich-text-component-embed" data-component-info="{&quot;title&quot;:&quot;Federal Circuitry - Rehearing CFRs&quot;,&quot;embed_code&quot;:&quot;&lt;iframe allowfullscreen=\&quot;true\&quot; frameborder=\&quot;0\&quot; height=\&quot;2350\&quot; width=\&quot;100%\&quot; src=\&quot;https://public.tableau.com/views/RehearingCFRsandSubstantiveOrders/RehearingCFRs?:language=en&amp;amp;:display_count=y&amp;amp;:origin=viz_share_link&amp;amp;:showVizHome=no&amp;amp;:embed=yes&amp;amp;:showShareOptions=false\&quot;&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&quot;,&quot;locale&quot;:&quot;en-us&quot;,&quot;uid&quot;:&quot;blt602374a5cb88119e&quot;,&quot;_version&quot;:7,&quot;heights&quot;:{&quot;desktop&quot;:2350,&quot;_trace&quot;:&quot;nav;array_node;drop_down;array_node;description;heights&quot;,&quot;_key&quot;:&quot;heights&quot;},&quot;publish_details&quot;:{&quot;environment&quot;:&quot;bltf4674cd9142c5020&quot;,&quot;locale&quot;:&quot;en-us&quot;,&quot;time&quot;:&quot;2022-07-24T17:59:31.978Z&quot;,&quot;user&quot;:&quot;bltb12aec4341d41463&quot;,&quot;_trace&quot;:&quot;nav;array_node;drop_down;array_node;description;publish_details&quot;,&quot;_key&quot;:&quot;publish_details&quot;},&quot;_fetched&quot;:true,&quot;_content_type_uid&quot;:&quot;embed_content&quot;,&quot;_trace&quot;:&quot;nav;array_node;drop_down;array_node;description&quot;,&quot;_key&quot;:&quot;key&quot;}" data-component-type="embed_content" data-component-inline="false"></div>

En Banc Tracker

Many orders from the Federal Circuit are not reported but can affect practice and procedure before the Court. We track and reproduce those orders here, highlighting ones that may be of significant interest to those who have cases before the Federal Circuit.<div data-reactroot=""><span class="rich-text-component-embed" data-component-info="{&quot;title&quot;:&quot;Federal Circuitry - Substantive Orders List&quot;,&quot;embed_code&quot;:&quot;&lt;iframe src=\&quot;https://public.tableau.com/views/RehearingCFRsandSubstantiveOrders/SubstantiveOrders?:language=en&amp;amp;:display_count=y&amp;amp;:origin=viz_share_link&amp;amp;:showVizHome=no&amp;amp;:embed=yes&amp;amp;:showShareOptions=false\&quot; width=\&quot;100%\&quot; height=\&quot;3030\&quot; allowfullscreen=\&quot;true\&quot; frameborder=\&quot;0\&quot;&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&quot;,&quot;width&quot;:1042,&quot;height&quot;:3030,&quot;locale&quot;:&quot;en-us&quot;,&quot;uid&quot;:&quot;blt4edb4c3faea45d79&quot;,&quot;_version&quot;:1,&quot;publish_details&quot;:{&quot;environment&quot;:&quot;bltf4674cd9142c5020&quot;,&quot;locale&quot;:&quot;en-us&quot;,&quot;time&quot;:&quot;2022-07-08T18:52:01.845Z&quot;,&quot;user&quot;:&quot;blt36ddfa4ec5e5dbda&quot;,&quot;_trace&quot;:&quot;nav;array_node;drop_down;array_node;description;publish_details&quot;,&quot;_key&quot;:&quot;publish_details&quot;},&quot;_fetched&quot;:true,&quot;_content_type_uid&quot;:&quot;embed_content&quot;,&quot;_trace&quot;:&quot;nav;array_node;drop_down;array_node;description&quot;,&quot;_key&quot;:&quot;key&quot;}" data-component-type="embed_content" data-component-inline="false"></div>

Substantive Orders Tracker

Trackers

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (May 15 – May 19): Joint Inventorship and Insignificant Contributions

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (April 17 – April 21): Inherent Limits And Patent Enablement

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (April 10 – April 14): IPR Statutory Estoppel, In Two Acts

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (March 27 – March 31): Consulting The Federal Circuit On Statutory Interpretation

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (March 13 – March 17): A reminder that motivation doesn’t need to be found in the prior art references themselves

LinkedIN

Like the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court has returned to in-person arguments.  But the Supreme Court has adopted a hybrid of its old free-for-all style of questioning and the more orderly Justice-by-Justice questioning format it used over the phone.  MoFo appellate co-chairs Deanne Maynard and Joe Palmore were recently interviewed by Reuters about what to expect.Read the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/mofo-scotus-co-chairs-keep-your-eye-these-two-justices-new-term-begins-2021-10-01/" target="_blank">full article</a>, which includes a video interview with Deanne and Joe.

Seth Lloyd, a member of Morrison & Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, has briefed dozens of appeals in federal and state courts nationwide. Seth has presented oral arguments in the U.S. 

Seth Lloyd

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc.jpg

Oral Argument Innovations at SCOTUS

High Court Orders Rethink Of $9.7M Award After TransUnion

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc

Like the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court has returned to in-person arguments.  But the Supreme Court has adopted a hybrid of its old free-for-all style 

Oral Argument Innovations at SCOTUS

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog. Our <a href="/statistics">Federal Circuit Statistics</a> empirically analyze quantifiable aspects of the Court. Our <a href="/trackers/en-banc-tracker">En Banc Tracker</a> highlights pending and past petitions. Our <a href="/trackers/substantive-orders-tracker">Substantive Order Tracker</a> allows you to search less-discussed orders. Check back weekly for <a href="/topics/?c=1463631">Last Week in the Federal Circuit</a> and monthly for our <a href="/topics/?c=1463521">Oral Argument Recap</a>.Follow us on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/Fed_Circuitry" target="_blank">@Fed_Circuitry</a> and check out our sister blog, <a href="https://leftcoast.mofo.com/" target="_blank">Left Coast Appeals</a>, to keep tabs on the Ninth Circuit.

Welcome to Federal Circuitry

Federal Circuitry is a data-driven Federal Circuit blog. Our Federal Circuit Statistics empirically analyze quantifiable aspects of the Court. Our En Banc Track

Topic Archives: Announcements

Oral Argument Innovations at SCOTUS

By: Seth W. Lloyd

Welcome to Federal Circuitry