FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a contract case and reverses and remands a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion comes in a tax case “involv[ing] the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and dismisses-in-part a case addressing allegedl federal trade dress infringement and federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion yesterday in Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., a Lanham Act case that we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment for Crocs against Dawgs’ counterclaim alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Crocs based on Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent it interpreted as legally barring Dawgs’ counterclaim. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Reyna that was joined by Judge Cunningham and Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, who sat by designation. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion that affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for further proceedings a patent case appealed from the Western District of Missouri. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first transfers a case to the District of Nevada unless, within 30 days from the date of entry of the order, a party files a notice with the court that she has made a filing in the district court case affirmatively dismissing any claims overlapping with this matter. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. The other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a patent case and denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the action. Two of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. Here is the link to the opinion.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order and one nonprecedential opinion. Notably, the precedential order grants a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Middle District of Georgia to grant a motion to dismiss in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the order and opinion.