This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent infringement cases, along with four Rule 36 summary affirmances of appeals of judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances.
One of the three cases on the Federal Circuit’s hearing schedule last week that attracted an amicus brief was Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. Tao presented several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. After the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication. Unsurprisingly, late last week a panel of the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case.
This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases, a trademark case, a veterans case, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. And the court released five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a taking cases. The court also issued an erratum and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the erratum and summary affirmance.
This past Monday the court heard oral argument in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Mobility Workx presents several arguments that inter partes review violates the Constitution. In particular, Mobility Workx argues that inter partes review violates its right to due process and qualifies as a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk heard Monday’s argument. This is our argument recap.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; two nonprecedential opinions involving the same appellant challenging separate decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case; and a nonprecedential opinion in an employment law case challenging an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions of the opinions.
This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent infringement case in which the parties disputed whether settlement agreements were discoverable or privileged. Finally, the court released a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Buffington v. McDonough, a case presenting the question of whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Judges Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley heard the argument. This is our argument recap.