FedCircuitBlog

On August 4, the Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google LLC, another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. As in In re Apple Inc., the court denied the petition. The court held that “Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.” The court reasoned it was not “prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual findings” of the district court. Here is a summary of the case and the order. 

Recently, the Federal Circuit denied three petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer cases. We have been following these cases because they attracted amicus briefs. This afternoon we will post three updates summarizing the court’s orders. Up first is in In re Apple Inc. On August 4, the Federal Circuit issued an order in this case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Judge Reyna authored the order, indicating on behalf of himself and Judges Chen and Stoll that “we cannot say that Apple has shown entitlement to this extraordinary relief.” Here is a summary of the case and the order. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from a district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case addressing 35 U.S.C. § 145, which governs the shifting of fees in successful appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to federal district court to challenge the rejection of patent applications. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and 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Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two nonprecedential opinions in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and an employment case, a Rule 36 judgment, and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the relevant orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a nonprecedential order denying a petition for writ of mandamus along with a concurring opinion by Judge Reyna, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in employment cases. The precedential patent opinion addresses eligibility. The two precedential employment opinions address the interpretation and application of 38 U.S.C. § 714, which governs the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or alleged misconduct. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in one of these employment cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, and that opinion addresses claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, a precedential opinion in patent case, and a nonprecedential decision in a government contract case. Judge Newman dissented in the case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.