FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The other two opinions address appeals from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found certain patent claims unpatentable. The two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two errata. In the precedential opinion—which addresses an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by a district court—the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court incorrectly construed claim terms and thus vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The precedential order admonishes counsel for attempting to incorporate by reference multiple pages of argument from a brief in another case and warns future litigants against doing the same thing. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent and trade dress infringement case. The three nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and precedential order and links to the dismissals and errata.

This week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Chestek PLLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit upheld the rejection of Chestek’s trademark application. In particular, the court found the “USPTO’s decision to require the address provided by all applicants to be a domicile address was . . . not arbitrary or capricious for failure to provide a reasoned justification.” This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Another precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which denied a petition for cancellation of mark’s registration. The third precedential opinion vacates and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims due to impermissible fact finding. The nonprecedential opinion reverses and remands a grant of summary judgment of noninfringment by a district court in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit release two nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion, which includes a concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part from Judge Schall, addresses an appeal from a district court’s final judgment of invalidity with respect to the definiteness of certain patent claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed an examiner’s refusal to register a mark for failure to comply with the domicile address requirement. The nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses the application of the Barring Act to the settlement of Combat-Related Special Compensation claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a district court judgment in a patent case. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review, which held certain claims unpatentable as obvious or lacking written description. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and addresses an assertion by the government of a right to practice a patent and have a patent practiced on its behalf under a provision of a Bayh-Dole Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address jurisdiction, one affirms the rejection of proposed patent claims for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and one affirms the dismissal of a complaint due to the claims being timebarred. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit ultimately reversed, vacated, and remanded portions of the Board’s decisions. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—challenging both the Board’s claim construction and asserting that the Board’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The two nonprecedential opinions address appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, with one opinion sparking a dissent from Judge Reyna. The order grants a voluntary withdrawal of a petition for review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.