FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, two Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the precedential opinions, one of the cases was a patent case appealed from a district court and the other was a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the orders were released in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One was released in a case appealed from a district court. Here are links to the dismissals.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, Google appealed a judgment decided of the Western District of Texas, which denied its motion for a new trial on damages. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit additionally reinstated the panel opinion as to issues other than damages. This is our opinion summary.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other dismissing an appeal from the District of Delaware. Here are links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Middle District of Florida. Notably, Judge Stark concurred in part and dissented in part from the court’s holding vacating the district court’s judgment and remanding for further proceedings based on errors in claim construction. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the two orders transfers an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, while the other order dismisses an appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the transfer and dismissals.