FedCircuitBlog

After a slew of orders last Friday, the Federal Circuit released only one summary affirmance today on its website.

The Federal Circuit has been busy. This morning it released two precedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case and reverses in part final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion comes in a veterans case and affirms dismissal of veterans’ petitions for writs of mandamus. The nonprecedential orders do various things in various cases: deny a motion for permission to appeal, dismiss a petition for review, grant a motion to remand a trademark case back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, grant a motion to transfer a case, dismiss a petition for review as premature, grant a petition by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and grant a motion for summary affirmance. Late yesterday, the Feddral Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, other than the dismissal, which is only linked.

This morning the Federal Circuit released related precedential and nonprecedential opinions addressing parallel appeals from judgments of a district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the same patents. In the precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates a district court’s judgment of willful infringement and remands with instructions to dismiss the case as moot given the Federal Circuit’s holding in the related nonprecedential opinion affirming final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all of the asserted claims invalid. The Federal Circuit also released another precedential opinion reversing a district court’s finding of lack of personal jurisdiction in another patent infringement dispute. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a second nonprecedential opinion, this one in a separate appeal from another final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for review. The opinion describes why the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Western District of Texas to dismiss claims for lack of constitutional standing in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case, a nonprecedential order granting a motion to dismissal an appeal given that a judgment was non-final, and another nonprecedential order dismissing a petition based on joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order dismissing the appeal and a link to the other dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented in part. The court also released two other nonprecedential opinions, one in another case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction and one in an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the opinion’s introduction.

The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late February in a case that attracted an amicus brief, Beaudette v. McDonough. This is a veterans case in which the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly issued the writ of mandamus because the “Beaudettes had no adequate alternative means to obtain the relief requested” and the Board of Veteran’s Appeals “has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine the types of appeals within its jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion comes in a case brought under the Indian Tucker Act and involving several claims related to water rights and water-related infrastructure, including breach of trust, breach of contract, and takings claims. The panel affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which had held in favor of the United States on all of the plaintiff-appellant’s claims. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and Judge Reyna’s opinion.

After two days without releasing any opinions or orders on its website, this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. That’s it. Here’s a link to the dismissal.