FedCircuitBlog

Today, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion addresses an appeal from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. The order is a dismissal of an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of International Trade that “the statutory authority to ‘modify’ a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes” and that Proclamation 10101 exceeded the President’s authority. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that the “the President’s view that a ‘modification’ may include a change in a trade-restricting direction, and is not limited to trade-liberalizing changes, is not unreasonable.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case, disputing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s claim construction and ultimate decision declaring certain claims unpatentable. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims had not been shown to be unpatentable. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal asking whether a district court erred in its claim construction in a patent case. The majority found that the district court did not err, while Judge Stark dissented. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a lower court’s decision to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reviews a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed an opposition to the registration of a character mark and design mark. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues, with one affirming a Merit Systems Protection Board dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and another dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The order grants a motion to withdraw a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the withdrawal and summary affirmances.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Sun’s patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding for failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement. In an opinion by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment. In particular, the court held that the Board had “substantial evidence to conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation” of success in modifying compounds as directed in Sun’s patent claims.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion, which attracted one amicus brief, addresses two issues in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade: the President’s authority to modify safeguard measures in a trade-restrictive manner and the appropriate procedures under the Trade Act for doing so. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Three of the opinions address appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two address issues arising out of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: one addresses the jurisdiction of the lower court and the other addresses an appeal from an order of the lower court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The third opinion addresses an appeal from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order that dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.