FedCircuitBlog

Last week, late in the day on Friday the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing and issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The court noted that Judges Newman and Stoll were recused based on a conflict of interest that was identified by the parties after oral arguments were made and judgment was entered. Judges Moore and Chen replaced Judges Newman and Stoll on the panel. The court admonished that the parties should have notified the court about the conflict sooner and warned that the Federal Circuit expects the utmost candor towards the court concerning conflicts. Here is text from the opinion.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The case addresses whether the ITC abused its discretion in refusing to modify or rescind a civil penalty after a patent was found to be invalid. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that patent claims were obvious. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order concerning attorneys who violated the court’s protocols issued in light of COVID-19. Specifically, while the in-person oral argument protocols allowed only arguing counsel and no more than one attendee to be present, the parties in question brought two arguing counsel and two attendees in violation of the protocols. Notably, the court did not sanction the attorneys, but indicated that “the bar is on notice that this court takes compliance with these protocols very seriously and that sanctions will likely be imposed if a future violation of the protocols takes place.” Here is the introduction to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Virginia. The second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fifth and sixth come in Tucker Act and tax cases respectively appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issues a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The opinion addressed whether a patentee’s arguments during reexamination before the Patent and Trademark Office narrowed the scope of claims and nullified a prior district court judgment of infringement. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented in part. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and dissenting opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in related cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion addresses standing to bring takings claims against the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The second opinion also addresses standing but also subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

Given that today is Presidents’ Day, the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two came in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two came in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The last came in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.