FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dixon v. United States, a tax case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Dixon’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case involving analysis of pre-AIA first-to-invent provisions. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, along with a nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case dealing with attorney fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case involving an antidumping administrative review. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case that presented the Court with the opportunity to decide “whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment of invalidity and found a patent “specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims.” Justice Gorsuch authored the Court’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases involving patent claims that were deemed invalid as indefinite. The court also released seven nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and one of the orders and links to the other dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released four nonprecedential orders: one summarily affirming a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one summarily affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, one transferring a veteran’s case to the Western District of Texas, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two in patent cases and two in pro se cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an inter partes review and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.