FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an employment retaliation claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders. The first denies a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Northern District of California seeking to order the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late in the day yesterday granting a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms a finding lack of jurisdiction for an appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a combined petition for panel and en banc rehearing. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and related to that court’s invalidation of Veterans Affairs regulations. The court also issued a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, and his opinion was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman. In the dissenting judges’ view, the panel decision confused patent law’s written description requirement. In addition to this order, the court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorneys’ fees. Finally, late yesterday the court issued a nonprecedential order concerning a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to reverse a jury verdict on the issue of joint ownership of a patent. The second comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Texas, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two 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. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

On February 24, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Elster, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a trademark registration, Elster argued the rejection violated of the Constitution’s First Amendment. In particular, Elster faulted section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which recites that “[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it . . . [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent . . . .” The United States argued that section 2(c) is constitutionally legal and applied correctly in this case. The Federal Circuit, however, found section 2(c) unconstitutional as applied here. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.