FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. The first opinion affirms a judgment in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and the second opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, four nonprecedential orders, and five nonprecedential Rule 36 judgments. The opinion dismisses an appeal in a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction. All of the orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders and summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential order remands a case vacated by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment of the Western District of Texas in a patent case. All four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the District of Delaware, which held that Norwich infringed certain patent claims but that other claims were invalid for obviousness. After Norwich amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application to remove the infringing indication, Norwich sought to modify the judgment, contending the amendment negated any possible infringement. The district court, however, denied its motion. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judge Chen, affirmed the judgment of the district court. Judge Cunningham, however, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion affirms in part and reverses and remands in part for further proceedings a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of five claims raising statutory, contract, and constitutional issues. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. The first order transmits a petition to a district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal, while the second order is a dismissal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and seven nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a district court’s judgment based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter. One of the orders transfers an appeal from to the Ninth Circuit, one terminates an appeal and transfers the case to the Court of Federal Claims, and one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus. The other four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” This is our opinion summary.