FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential opinions in two separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting in part and denying in part a motion for sanctions and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, four new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases, a takings case, and a pro se case; reply briefs in support of petitions were submitted in a patent case and a case involving application of the Equal Access to Justice Act; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, affirming the district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the appellee, a veteran. The court also received two new petitions raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claims, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the grounds for inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. Three grant unopposed motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals; one grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal and lifts an order staying proceedings of another appeal. Here is text from the orders.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article addressing some of “the biggest patent decisions so far this year”;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that an “[a]ttorney improperly represented clients while [he was a] Navy employee”; and
• a blog post noting how “[i]n a new opinion the [Federal Circuit] asked and answered an interesting question: What if most on-point prior art was accidentally created due to a typographical error?” 

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post examining how “opinions in regular [Federal Circuit] appeals are more than twice as likely to be precedential than orders” on petitions for mandamus related to venue;
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit over the past decade has adopted more stringent standards for meeting the [Patent Act’s] dictates that patents provide a clear written description, and enable others to understand the invention”; and
• another article discussing how, after the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, “[p]atent eligibility in America is a train wreck.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Milton v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the plaintiffs-appellants asked the court to reverse a Court of Federal Claims decision granting summary judgement in favor of the United States. Numerous parties asserted takings claims against the government based on properties being flooded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs released water during Hurricane Harvey. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary.