FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order. The order is a dismissal, which we link here.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealing decisions of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in August in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that Celanese’s asserted patent claims were invalid under the on-sale bar because Celanese sold products made using a patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates of the asserted patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s judgment. According to the panel, “Celanese fail[ed] to show the [America Invents Act] overturned settled precedent that pre-critical date sales of products made using a secret process preclude the patentability of that process.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both are dismissals, which we link below.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court in June issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case that attracted eight amicus briefs. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Notably, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both concurred in part and Justice Sotomayor concurred only in the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case and vacates a judgment of invalidity based on ineligibility. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer cases, while the third nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a case that attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a takings claim by owners of residential rental properties. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the owners did state a claim for a physical taking, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion comes in a government contract case, while the second comes in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the second comes in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Two of the nonprecedential orders grant motions to transfer, a third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the fourth is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and all of the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.