FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential opinions in two separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting in part and denying in part a motion for sanctions and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. Three grant unopposed motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals; one grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal and lifts an order staying proceedings of another appeal. Here is text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Milton v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the plaintiffs-appellants asked the court to reverse a Court of Federal Claims decision granting summary judgement in favor of the United States. Numerous parties asserted takings claims against the government based on properties being flooded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs released water during Hurricane Harvey. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case, affirming the Court of International Trade’s decision to sustain a Department of Commerce antidumping order. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Last Friday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to transfer a case to the Northern District of Alabama; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and one grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.

Last week, we reported that the Federal Circuit issued a relatively rare opinion granting panel rehearing in a patent case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. In the original, now-vacated opinion, a panel comprised of Judges O’Malley and Linn, with Chief Judge Moore dissenting, indicated the court would affirm a district court’s judgment that claims are not invalid for inadequate written description. Notably, however, a different panel ruled on the motion for panel rehearing. In particular, with Judge O’Malley’s retirement from the court, Judge Hughes joined the panel. The new panel, and in particular Chief Judge Moore (no longer dissenting) and Judge Hughes, with Judge Linn now dissenting, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated the panel’s prior decision, and, in the new opinion, now reverse the district court’s judgment. Perhaps most importantly, the changed outcome reflects a difference of view regarding application of the written description requirement. Here is an update on the case.