FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion by the Patent and Trademark Office to remand a case back to the agency to reconsider rejections of patent claims. Lastly, the court released two nonprecedential orders transferring cases, one in a civil rights case appealed from the Southern District of Florida and now transferred to the Eleventh Circuit, and one in a disability discrimination case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and now transferred to the District of Columbia. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order and links to the orders transferring cases.

On June 12, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation and, as a result, “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reversed. According to the Court, “[t]he CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.” This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Today, the Federal Circuit has not released any opinions or orders given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case we’ve been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Curtin appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss her opposition after concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose a registration. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Taranto and Barnett, the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying decision. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one errata. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the International Trade Commission for lack of jurisdiction. Both of the nonprecedential opinions were appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following inter partes review proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and errata.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, five come in patent cases, three come in cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was appealed from the District of Oregon in a case raising Quiet Title Act and inverse condemnation claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Both of the precedential opinions came in patent cases, where one was appealed from a district court and the other appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two were appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while one was appealed from a district court in a false advertising case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonpreceential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and one nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Trademark trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One transfers a case, and one dismisses an appeal. Notably, in the third order, the Federal Circuit adopted a briefing schedule and set oral argument for July 31 in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order in the tariff case and links to the transfer and dismissals.