FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, all four also come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition for writ of mandamus and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, as well as links to dismissal and erratum.

Late the last two days, the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Additionally, this morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware and three nonprecedential opinions. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, while the third comes in a veterans case.  Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in pro se cases and the other is a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that certain patent claims are unpatentable in light of prior art. The oral argument focused on “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argued is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. The Federal Circuit, however, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie and Judge Stark, affirmed the Board. It found no error in the Board’s unpatentability determinations using, as the relevant date for prior art purposes, the abandoned patent application’s filing date. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one is a pro se veterans case and the other is a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court affirmed the Board’s invalidity determination. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board as well, with one of them appealed pro se. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a petition to appeal a case from the Court of Federal Claims, one denies a similar petition, two deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and all of the orders other than the dismissals, which are simply linked.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for the Court of International Trade to effect service of process on a foreign company, while the other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and first order and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, two Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se veterans case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.