FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion that affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for further proceedings a patent case appealed from the Western District of Missouri. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first transfers a case to the District of Nevada unless, within 30 days from the date of entry of the order, a party files a notice with the court that she has made a filing in the district court case affirmatively dismissing any claims overlapping with this matter. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. The other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a patent case and denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the action. Two of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. Here is the link to the opinion.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order and one nonprecedential opinion. Notably, the precedential order grants a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Middle District of Georgia to grant a motion to dismiss in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the order and opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order. The order is a dismissal, which we link here.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealing decisions of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in August in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that Celanese’s asserted patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar because Celanese sold products made using a patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates of the asserted patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s judgment. According to the panel, “Celanese fail[ed] to show the [America Invents Act] overturned settled precedent that pre-critical date sales of products made using a secret process preclude the patentability of that process.” This is our opinion summary.