FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and one comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. That is it. Here are links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders comes in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and the first order as well as a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal and one responding to a petition for a writ of mandamus. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.  One of the nonprecedential orders comes in response to a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are introductions to the opinions and orders related to petitions as well as links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two come in response to petitions for review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Two of the opinions come in takings cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois, and the other comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” The Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Court decided mere plausibility that a physician could read relevant statements “as an instruction or encouragement to” infringe did not rise to the required standard of taking “active steps” to induce patent infringement. Here is the introduction and conclusion of today’s opinion. We plan to post a full opinion summary soon.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. One nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade, one comes in patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, and the last opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the opinions comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The other comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments.