FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. Three opinions address appeals from patent cases—two from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from the District of Delaware. The additional two opinions address decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two dismissals were agreed upon by the parties, while one dismissal resulted from an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross appeal. Here are links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions comes in a patent case addressing an appeal from eight final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Another of the opinions dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two opinions address appeals from the same pro se plaintiff from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one order dismissing an appeal. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable as obvious. This first opinion ultimately concludes that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The other precedential opinion also addresses an appeal of a decision of the PTAB, this one concluding that the PTAB abused its discretion in determining that a party failed to identify a field of endeavor and thus failed to establish analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis. Finally, the nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the United States Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Today, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty investigation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims are anticipated and obvious in light of the prior art. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders: one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order a district court to transfer a case, and another grants a motion to dismiss. Here is the introduction to the denial and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses arguments about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of a claim term and the Board’s denial of a motion to amend claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

On Monday, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in In re Cellect, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, the court held that “ODP for a patent that has received [Patent Term Adjustment], regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” This is our opinion summary.