FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and seven Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. One of the two precedential opinions affirms a summary judgment by a district court in a patent case. The other precedential opinion resolves an appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and six Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal challenging several orders of a district court in a patent case. Another of the opinions challenges a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an order staying proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Both of the opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a military officer’s retirement status and affiliated retirement pay. The second precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the district court’s indefiniteness determination but vacates and remands its nonobviousness determination. Both of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals from judgments of the Eastern District of Texas granting motions for summary judgment of noninfringement, and the Federal Circuit affirms in both cases. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the reopening of a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential dismissal. The opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment that all asserted patent claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses an appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses a dispute over the application of the Equal Pay Act and an employer’s reliance on prior compensation to justify gender pay discrepancy. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.