FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that amendments to the Federal Circuit’s rules go into effect today, and the court provided a link to the final version of the rules. The court also adopted changes to two forms and adopted two new forms, and provided a link to the forms. We previously reported on the changes. Here is the full text of today’s announcement with the links to the rules and forms.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision affirming the unpatentability of patent claims as either anticipated or obvious issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 71 cases. Of the 71 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 46. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

The Federal Circuit did not release any new opinions or orders today on its website.

Happy Thanksgiving! The Federal Circuit is closed today and did not release any new opinions or orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

As we’ve been reporting, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases, Hamill v. Collins, is a veterans case. In it, Hamill appeals a dismissal by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of his mandamus petition. He urged that court to order the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue an appealable decision readjudicating the character of his discharge, and to certify a class of veterans who received other than honorable discharges and then applied for benefits but received decisions that adjudicated only healthcare eligibility, not including readjudication of the character of their discharges. The lower court dismissed his petition as moot because Hamill received a determination from VA that he had not submitted new and material evidence related to the character of his discharge. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed on Wednesday, December 24, beginning at 1:00 p.m., and Wednesday, December 31, also beginning at 1:00 p.m. The Court said it will also be closed on November 27 and 28, December 25, and January 1. All electronic filing deadlines will remain in effect. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. One comes in an appeal of a judgment of invalidity, and the other comes in an appeal of an award of attorneys’ fees. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One order grants a motion to vacate a judgment, while the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Mid Contintent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PT Enterprise Inc. and related Taiwanese nail producers appeal a decision of the Court of International Trade, which sustained findings of the Department of Commerce. In particular, PT Enterprise asks the Federal Circuit to determine whether the Department of Commerce’s differential pricing methodology, which determines whether there is a significant difference between pricing patterns, is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. This is our argument preview.