FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, two summary affirmances, and one errata. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a government contract case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances, order, and errata.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appealed a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it failed to prove claims in Jadi Cell’s patent were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Schall and Taranto, affirmed the PTAB’s determination. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a trademark case on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in pro se cases and the other comes in a vaccine case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one remands a case and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, seven nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one summary affirmance under Rule 36. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the third comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two come in appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and two come in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the summary affirmance.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the majority’s holding affirming the Court of International Trade. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, while the other comes in a veterans case. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a veterans case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in a veterans case, and one comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance and dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in a patent cases, while one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss HDCC’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. HDCC alleged that the government owed it an “equitable adjustment for various delays and increased costs” during its contract performance, and that HDCC “experienced excusable delays due to government changes and additions to the contact work relating to the retaining wall construction.” In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of HDCC’s claim regarding excusable delay related to a retaining wall; reversed the lower court’s dismissal with respect to government delays for delivery of rights of way, utility relocation, and a repayment claim; and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. Of the precedential opinions, both come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, two deny petitions and the other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissals.