FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case decided by a district court, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Two of the orders dismiss appeals. The remaining order is a sue sponte order recalling a mandate for the limited purpose of correcting a misstatement in the opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order recalling the mandate, along with links to the dismissals.

In December, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision of the Eastern District of Texas to deny leave for a third party to intervene and seek the unsealing of various filings. In an opinion authored by Judge Bryson, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen, dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the third party’s motion for permissive intervention.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and 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 links to the judgments and dismissal.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued an order in Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Before the Court reached a decision, the United States voluntarily moved to remand the case. In a per curiam order, Judges Taranto, Bryson, and Cunningham granted the motion and remanded the case to the Court of International Trade. Here is a summary of the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a design patent case and includes a dissent by Chief Judge Moore. The other two opinions come in related matters, trade cases challenging decisions of the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for remand while the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order granting remand, along with links the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of anticipation of asserted claims. A panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders grants a motion for summary affirmance; the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order and a link to the dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case a petition for a writ of mandamus presented a question whether venue is proper when a patent owner fails to establish that every step of a patented method was performed in a judicial district. In a order authored per curiam, Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes denied the petition. Here is a summary of the order.

Last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Lesko v. United States, an en banc case addressing federal employment law. In it, the Federal Circuit reviewed a federal employee’s argument that a writing requirement for overtime approval was not a valid exercise of the Office of Personnel Management’s rulemaking authority. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, the en banc court concluded that the writing requirement was a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority. Judge Stoll and three other judges dissented. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, answering the question whether an accused product infringes when it does not perform claim limitations in an allegedly required sequence. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one of which is a pro se appeal. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.