FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case holding that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) disclosed within a challenged patent is not “prior art” for the purposes of inter partes review. While the court noted that AAPA is not categorically excluded from inter partes review for all purposes, the court held is not “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under the relevant statutory provision. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last Monday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Cross v. Office of Personnel Management, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Moore, Schall, and Stoll. On appeal, Cross asked the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Merits Systems Protection Board regarding the denial of survivor benefits. In particular, the petitioner claimed survivor benefits as a surviving former spouse when her deceased former husband failed affirmatively to re-elect her survivor benefits during the few months between their divorce and his death. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s denial of survivor benefits. This is our opinion summary.

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 trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The lower court applied an adverse inference against an importer regarding subsidies it had received due to the government of China’s lack of cooperation in the Department of Commerce’s investigation of the imported goods. The Federal Circuit’s opinion affirms the lower court’s application of the adverse inference. Here is the introduction to the opinion.  

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The opinion reversed the district court’s determination that certain patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The Federal Circuit concluded the district court erred with respect to the legal standard for indefiniteness. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinion and dissent.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

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 decision that patent claims are not patentable but instead obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case also involving trade secrets. This case was appealed from the Central District of California. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit vacated a judgment based on a claim construction adopted by the International Trade Commission and remanded the case. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a military discharge case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Court also issued five nonprecedential opinions in various cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.