FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and a nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other precedential opinion comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the other nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The court issued the nonprecedential order sua sponte to order the appellants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for violated Federal Circuit Rule 32(b)(1) and a prior order. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Late Friday the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Today the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. One comes in a veterans case. The other comes in a rails-to-trails takings case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, as well as a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. In the patent case, the Federal Circuit affirms holdings that claims are invalid because they are ineligible for patenting. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit a precedential opinion in a veterans case, along with two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, along with links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it affirms a judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In the case appealed from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirms a judgment of invalidity for lack of eligibility. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released a precedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, along with another nonprecedential order dismissing another appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. Both of the opinions come in international trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, one grants a motion for summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition, along with links to the other orders.

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders and an errata. Two of the orders transfer appeals, while the third dismisses an appeal. Here are links to the orders and the errata.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third is a design patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Tennessee. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential opinions. In the precedential opinion, the court reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an incorrect interpretation of the patent statute in the context of determining what qualifies as prior art for use in an inter partes review proceeding. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a vaccine case, one in an international trade case, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two in patent cases appealed from district courts. Notably, Judge Stark filed additional views in the international trade case, indicating potential disagreement with the court’s law governing differential pricing analyses, while Judge Prost filed a concurring opinion in the nonprecedential opinion reviewing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.