FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a case appealing a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the summary affirmances.

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

• an article how an inventor “is asking the Supreme Court to take up his case, not to overturn Alice, but to clarify how courts should apply it”;
• an article noting how “Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was among a group of nearly 50 economists” telling the Federal Circuit “that President Donald Trump improperly used a ‘balance-of-payments’ provision to justify a round of global tariffs earlier this year”;
• an article reporting the Merit Systems Protection Board “has finalized rules ending standards it has used since the early 1980s to weigh the appropriateness of a penalty—often firing—in appeals by federal employees of disciplinary actions for alleged misconduct”; and
• an article describing how “[c]ourts are testing the boundaries of” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo “on federal regulatory authority,” saying it “left open a path for judges to defer to executive branch agencies in certain circumstances.”

Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and six nonprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and one appealed from the District of Delaware. As for the nonprecedential opinions, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; two come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas; and one comes in a federal employment case. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, Judge Subramanian, sitting by designation, dissented. Another of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a trade secret case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases involving the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.

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, two new petitions were filed in a veterans case and a pro se case; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in pro se cases; and a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in an Indian Tucker Act case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The opinion comes in a case appealing a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion as well as links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court has set a date for oral argument in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal powers. Also, a new response was filed in response to a petition that raises questions about the written description requirement, and the court denied three petitions that raised questions regarding appellate procedure, claim construction, means-plus-function treatment, and damages. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the errata.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight four recent opinions: one addressing injunctive relief, two addressing bilateral tax treaties and their relation to net investment income tax, and one addressing educational benefits for veterans. We also identify two new cases: one raising questions related to injunctive relief, and one raising questions related to the domestic-industry requirement. We highlight two response briefs in cases that raised questions related to inter partes reviews and obviousness; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related remedies against the United States and copyright law; and one intervenor brief in a case that raises questions related to the ability to appeal denial of institution of inter partes review. Here are the details.