FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in veterans cases, a nonprecedential opinion in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, another nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Bureau of Justice Assistance regarding death benefits, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a party’s protest in a government contract case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

This morning, in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order denying both a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Newman and O’Malley wrote opinions dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. Here is text from the order and the introductions to both dissenting opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one affirming a district court in a patent case and one affirming the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming a decision in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court with respect to its decision addressing prosecution laches and held the remainder of the case in abeyance. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. That brief argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “trial system violates due process.” The brief pointed to an alleged “October Effect” where administrative patent judges allegedly “change their judging standards at the end and beginning of each performance evaluation period” and subjective performance evaluations that allegedly cause reasonable people to “question whether the PTAB invalidates patents so frequently because its constituent APJs try to please their budget-minded bosses through revenue-enhancing decision making.” Notably, Judge Moore authored a brief majority opinion vacating and remanding two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based only on the Appointments Clause. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, but also did not address the alleged due process violation. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit decided Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The amicus brief argued that Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., “which held that patent licensing demand letters can never suffice to create personal jurisdiction over asserters of those patents, is inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent.” Judge Dyk authored a unanimous panel decision reversing and remanding the district court’s decision not to assert personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo. In the court’s view, its “more recent cases have concluded that, in the context of patent litigation, communications threatening suit or proposing settlement or patent licenses can be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases: one reversing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one affirming a decision by the International Trade Commission. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part a decision by the Central District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions.