FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order.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 The nonprecedential order is a dismissal.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This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer cases, while the third nonprecedential order is a dismissal.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This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders.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 The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the second comes in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.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.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first reverses a determination of the Court of Federal Claims that a breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations, vacates the remainder of the lower court’s decision, and remands for further proceedings. The second opinion affirms a dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in dismissing the case as moot and denying Freund’s request for class certification. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk that was joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the case was not moot as to the class claims because it “satisfie[d] the inherently transitory standard” and that the lower court “abused its discretion in finding that the adequacy and commonality requirements for class certifications were not met.” This is our opinion summary

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract dispute and vacates a judgment and an injunction, affirms a sanctions order, and remands for further proceedings. Three of the nonprecedential orders deny petitions seeking orders to transfer or not transfer cases, while one remands an appeal with instructions that a district court consider a motion to vacate and the last order was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. The first opinion affirms a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The second and third opinions affirm dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims. The last two opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.