FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion vacates and remands a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, five new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and two pro se petitions were denied. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third vacates and remands another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued it opinion in Frantzis v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Veterans Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Veteran Claims. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion reversing a district court in a trade secrets case. The district court had granted a preliminary injunction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac and Institut National Des Appellations D’Origine, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark (combining the phrase COLOGNE & COGNAC ENTERTAINMENT and a design featuring, inter alia, a bottle of COGNAC), if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” Judges Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both orders are dismissals. Here are the links to the orders.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case that attracted eighteen amicus briefs. In this case, the en banc court reviewed the continuing vitality of the so-called Rosen-Durling test to asses nonobviousness of design patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll, the en banc court overruled the cases using that test and adopted in its place a new approach for assessing nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie filed a concurring opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed the case as moot and denied Freund’s request for class certification. Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. The Federal Circuit had concluded that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Here is the introduction and conclusion of majority opinion. Next week we plan to post a full opinion summary.