FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one Rule 36 judgment. Both precedential opinions come in appeals in patent infringement cases, while both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and judgment.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one nonprecedential opinion and three Rule 36 judgments. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the judgments and dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions, another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and three Rule 36 judgments. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Volkswagen sought to have the Federal Circuit oder the United States Patent and Trademark Office to vacate its denial of a request for inter partes review. In the order, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes denied the petition. This is our summary of the order, which the panel issued per curiam.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a pro se appeal from decisions of a district court; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; and the third opinion 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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,while the nonprecedential opinion 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 Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, one Rule 36 judgment, and one errata. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discussing the standards to establish an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing to appeal. Two of the four nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including one pro se appeal; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the fourth comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal, Rule 36 judgment, and errata.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed from a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission barring the importation of Apple Watches found to infringe patents owned by Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the International Trade Commission. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and both address standing. Here are their introductions.