FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released an erratum. That’s it. Here’s a link to it.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of standing and dismissed in part the portion of the appeal regarding attorney fees. Here is text from the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; the second comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; and the third comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, in the trade case, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the District of South Carolina, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, a link to the dismissal, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint under the duplicative-litigation doctrine. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction amended complaints seeking refunds. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the opinion, the court explains that it affirms both the Board’s finding that a substitute claim is unpatentable as obvious and the Board’s denial of a motion to amend. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission’s determination of no infringement and a lack of domestic industry as to one patent and, with respect to an expired patent, vacated and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss due to the patent’s expiration. Notably, in the course of analyzing infringement of the first patent, the court highlighted that “a computer-implemented claim drawn to a functional capability requires some showing that the accused computer-implemented device is programmed or otherwise configured, without modification, to perform the claimed function when in operation.” The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order denying a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

In June, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy petitioned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a rule that would presume Agent Orange herbicide exposure for veterans who had served during specified periods in Guam or Johnston Island. After VA denied MVA’s petition, MVA petitioned the Federal Circuit to set aside VA’s denial and remand the case for rulemaking. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Newman and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit denied MVA’s petition. This is our opinion summary.