FedCircuitBlog

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, Judges Wallach and Taranto affirmed the denial of a motion for rehearing by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, they confirmed that the Board may consider § 101 eligibility challenges to proposed substitute claims in inter partes review proceedings. Judge O’Malley filed a dissenting opinion based on her view that the case is moot. Here is a summary of the opinion and dissent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court affirmed a district court’s ruling that sovereign immunity barred involuntary joinder, but reversed its ruling that, as a result, the lawsuit could not proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). The three judges on the panel (O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto) splintered in their reasoning. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and the separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a trade case involving an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus.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.