FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are links to the judgments.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before a panel that included Judges Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Mobility requested a remand to the Patent and Trademark Office in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., but it also made numerous constitutional challenges to the structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Judge Dyk authored the majority opinion in the case, ultimately remanding the case to the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to consider whether to grant a rehearing in light of Arthrex, but also concluding that Mobility’s constitutional arguments are without merit. Notably, Judge Newman authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the U.S. Patent and Trademark. The petition requested the Federal Circuit compel the Director of the USPTO to review a board decision in an inter partes review in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Here is the introduction to the order.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case we have been following because it attracted dueling amicus briefs. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen. On appeal, Kannuu argued that due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties the Southern District of New York should have ordered Samsung to seek dismissal of inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung. Judge Chen authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the denial of the requested relief. Judge Newman authored a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential in a patent case appealed from the District of North Dakota and addressing exceptionality and attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, the court issued two nonprecedential orders granting petitions for writs of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer patent cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first two come in related patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas and address claim construction, infringement, and definiteness. The third comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Columbia and replaces an earlier opinion, issued by the Federal Circuit in August, regarding the shifting of attorney and expert witness fees in civil actions to obtain patents. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions appealed respectively from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Early this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case involved allegations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) committed takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it banned bump-fire type rifle stocks. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, and Judges Taranto, Wallach, and Chen heard the appeal. Judge Taranto authored a short non-precedential opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, and Judge Wallach authored an opinion concurring in the result. This is our opinion summary. 

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions today on its website given the Columbus Day federal holiday.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.