FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and another patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision to unseal an amended complaint in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a denial of a motion to compel arbitration, and a precedential order dismissing an appeal and denying mandamus with respect to a denial of institution of an inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing eligible subject matter. Additionally, the court issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in a government contract case involving a bid protest. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contracts case concerning disaster-assistance funds distributions from FEMA. The court also released six nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. A new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to inter partes review and remedies, and a response was filed to a patent petition raising questions related to eligible subject matter and deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See the details of these cases below.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four precedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, and one involving an appeal of a district court’s order transferring a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordering a district court within 30 days to issue a ruling on a motion to transfer. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month scheduled three oral arguments in cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the court heard argument Thursday regarding two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem related to the plaintiff, Omni Medsci. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an alleged government contract case and a nonprecedential information in a patent case. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

One of the three cases scheduled to be argued last week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs was a death benefit case entitled Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management. Normally at this point we would provide a recap of the oral argument, but last week the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order “remov[ing] this case from the March 5, 2021 oral argument calendar and [holding] the case in abeyance for 60 days.” Here is the full text of the court’s order.

This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Euzebio v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Judge Wallach authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that certain materials were not constructively before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. This is our opinion summary.