FedCircuitBlog

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case we’ve been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Curtin appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss her opposition after concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose a registration. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Taranto and Barnett, the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying decision. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one errata. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the International Trade Commission for lack of jurisdiction. Both of the nonprecedential opinions were appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following inter partes review proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and errata.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, five come in patent cases, three come in cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was appealed from the District of Oregon in a case raising Quiet Title Act and inverse condemnation claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Both of the precedential opinions came in patent cases, where one was appealed from a district court and the other appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two were appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while one was appealed from a district court in a false advertising case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonpreceential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and one nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Trademark trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One transfers a case, and one dismisses an appeal. Notably, in the third order, the Federal Circuit adopted a briefing schedule and set oral argument for July 31 in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order in the tariff case and links to the transfer and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Two were precedential and one was nonprecedential. The precedential opinions address subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action and patent eligibility, respectively. The nonprecedential opinion addresses patent eligibility. Notably, all three opinions address patents asserted by United Services Automobile Association, and the two opinions addressing eligibility invalidate the asserted patents. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Marmen Inc. v. United States, a case we’ve been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Marmen appealed a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final determination by the Department of Commerce of a 4.94% dumping margin for utility-scale wind towers from Canada. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. As we separately noted, in one of these orders the en banc Federal Circuit stayed the Court of International Trade’s injunctions of President Trump’s tariffs. In yesterday’s other two nonprecedential orders, the court dismissed appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, in which the court affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court dismissed a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders (other than yesterday’s en banc order, which can be found here) and links to the dismissals.