FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a post-grant review proceeding and addresses claim construction, written description, enablement, and motions to amend practice and procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of an inter partes review and addresses claim construction and anticipation. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would order transfer, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. In it, the court vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding whether an appellant’s trademark was likely to be confused with three other trademarks the appellee had already registered. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. In an opinon authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Prost and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and definiteness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se patent case. In it, the court addressed whether the lack of compliance with a court order was appropriately handled by the district court when it sanctioned the appellant. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case that the court reviewed en banc. As explained in Judge Taranto’s opinion, a “majority of the court (as reflected in this opinion and the concurrence) agree[d], and the court [held], that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at issue, the required effective date of such benefits is the date that the veteran would have had in the absence of the challenged government conduct—imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. One other thing to note: Judge Wallach participated in the court’s en banc consideration of the case, despite being a senior judge, because he was on the original panel, and as a result this case was decided by a thirteen-judge panel. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is the link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.