FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case.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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a government contract dispute. Here is the introduction.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential
opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential order dismissing a case as moot
given two Rule 36 judgments involving the same parties. Here are the
introductions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, a precedential order denying panel rehearing and another precedential order in the same case denying en banc rehearing, and four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case along with three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions (all addressing lack of jurisdiction and standing) and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a government contract case and a veterans case. The court also issued five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.

Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.

Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case brought under the Tucker Act, two nonprecedential opinions in appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and a nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions.