FedCircuitBlog

As we reported earlier today, a Federal Circuit panel this morning issued a precedential order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. The order is important. It highlights the potential reach of the Federal Circuit’s decision earlier this year in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. Indeed, it suggests that Administrative Patent Judges are unconstitutionally appointed with respect to every aspect of their work: not just inter partes reviews, and not just inter partes reexaminations, but also everything else, including ex parte reexaminations, covered business method review, and ex parte appeals.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order unsealing it; two precedential orders in a patent case denying panel and en banc rehearing respectively; and nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, two patent cases, and a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in cases reviewing decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case.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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued a summary affirmance under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for initial hearing en banc in a veterans case, one precedential order denying a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, one nonprecedential order unsealing a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, the nonprecedential opinion in the patent case, another nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and another nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is text from the orders and the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential order granting a request to re-issue a nonprecedential order as a precedential order, the re-issued precedential order denying a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, and another nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer. Here is the introduction to the opinion and relevant text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions. As far as we can tell, this was not a result of the Star Wars holiday. The federal government has not yet recognized it, at least officially. May the Fourth be with you.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions addressing an award of attorneys’ fees in a patent case and an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision in an employment case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus on the issue of forum non conveniens in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.