FedCircuitBlog

In December, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of anticipation of asserted claims. A panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders grants a motion for summary affirmance; the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order and a link to the dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case a petition for a writ of mandamus presented a question whether venue is proper when a patent owner fails to establish that every step of a patented method was performed in a judicial district. In a order authored per curiam, Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes denied the petition. Here is a summary of the order.

Last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Lesko v. United States, an en banc case addressing federal employment law. In it, the Federal Circuit reviewed a federal employee’s argument that a writing requirement for overtime approval was not a valid exercise of the Office of Personnel Management’s rulemaking authority. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, the en banc court concluded that the writing requirement was a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority. Judge Stoll and three other judges dissented. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, answering the question whether an accused product infringes when it does not perform claim limitations in an allegedly required sequence. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one of which is a pro se appeal. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. One of the opinions comes in a case involving claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation; the other comes in an appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order remands a patent case back to a district court based on a district court’s indication it would vacate its patent ineligibility determinations. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an errata. One of the opinions comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. One of the petitions sought to order the Merit Systems Protection Board to order discovery and sanction an agency. The other petition sought to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a denial of its petition for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders along with a link to the errata.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Two of the opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from a district court. The third opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order transfers an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other precedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus; another transfers a case. The other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to dismissals.