FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal challenging the settlement of a nationwide class action claiming the federal judiciary overcharged members of the public for access to court records. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealing a denial of a motion for attorney’s fees and the other examining a district court’s claim construction and exclusion of an expert. The third opinion comes in government contract case. The fourth comes in a veterans case. Of the six nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and one grants a motion for summary affirmance. The other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission in a patent case. One of the three orders transfers an appeal; another grants a motion for an extension of time to file response; and the third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a decision not to institute an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Intel Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Intel petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Patent Trademark Office’s denial of its request for institution of inter partes review. In a per curiam order, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders granting motions to withdraw appeals. The first opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal of a patent infringement case for lack of constitutional standing. The second comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

The Federal Circuit did not release any new opinions or orders today on its website.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed a judgment of the Northern District of California, which rejected challenges to instructions issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review proceedings. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hamill v. Collins, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Mr. Hamill appealed an order dismissing his petition after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded his petition was moot and that no exception to mootness applied. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the panel vacated the order and remanded the case for the lower court to reconsider a question related to mootness. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.