FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case addressing the ability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to consider eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions or orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued an important order granting a motion to vacate and remand in In re Boloro Global Ltd., a case we have been following. In the order, the court extended the application of Arthrex to ex parte patent examination appeals, determining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed in this context (in addition to inter partes review as in Arthrex). Here is a summary of the case and the order.  

On Wednesday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sellers v. Wilkie, another case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel (including Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling granting benefits to a veteran. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hardy v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case the government challenged a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. In the opinion, a panel of the court (including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Stoll) unanimously affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. While the panel agreed with the lower court that Hardy has a compensable property interest, it vacated and remanded because the trial court did not focus on the relevant inquiry in analyzing the case. Here is a summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trade case and three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one precedential opinion in a takings case, and one precedential opinion in a trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.