FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The opinion addresses the denial of a motion for reconsideration by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The court also issued one erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and involving the same parties. One comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for writ of mandamus directing the District Court for Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. Here is the introduction to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and one in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second and third come in government contract cases appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, respectively. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are links to the judgments.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before a panel that included Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Mobility requested a remand to the Patent and Trademark Office in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., but it also made numerous constitutional challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion in the case, ultimately remanding the case to the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to consider whether to grant a rehearing in light of Arthrex, but also concluding that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Notably, Judge Newman authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the U.S. Patent and Trademark. The petition requested the Federal Circuit compel the Director of the USPTO to review a board decision in an inter partes review in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Here is the introduction to the order.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential in a patent case appealed from the District of North Dakota and addressing exceptionality and attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.