FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both come in patent cases, one appealed from the Northern District of California and one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article explaining how the Federal Circuit held that claims in three patents covering profitability-calculation methods are ineligible;
• an article reporting how USPTO Director John Squires asked the Federal Circuit to remand tech companies’ appeal of a $253 million patent judgment back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article highlighting how Senators Ashley Moody and Chris Coons introduced a bill, the Better Bench Act, that would let judges on the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims live anywhere in the United States instead of within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in three patent cases, a case presenting questions related to copyright and government contract law, and a pro se case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a government contract case; and six amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Today, the court released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal from the Northern District of California. Here is the introduction to the opinion along with links to the orders.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Barron v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Barron appeals the dismissal of her takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. This appeal presents questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one petition for rehearing en banc was denied in a patent case raising questions about the written description requirement and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Christensen v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Like the case we discussed yesterday, in this case the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for the orders, one concerns a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, two are summary affirmances of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims, and the other transfers a case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Here are the introductions.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bruyea v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment. This is our summary of the court’s opinion.