FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, raises a question relating to apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example, as a result of divorce decrees. This case asks whether the Merit Systems Protection Board misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that the Office of Personnel Management cannot divide annuity supplements at all, unless their division is expressly provided for in a court order. Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Eastern District of Louisiana, while one comes in an antidumping case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Here are the introductions to the opinions, along with a link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article highlighting how “[t]he Trump administration’s top lawyers urged a federal court . . . to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk ‘financial ruin’”;
• another piece discussing how the Trump Administration “sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern”;
• a post describing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has introduced DesignVision, a new artificial intelligence-powered image search tool now available to design patent examiners”; and
• an article covering how the USPTO “plans to require foreign patent applicants and owners to use agency-sanctioned representatives, according to the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda update released Friday.”

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court affirmed the Board’s decision to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has “formally ended fast-tracking examination of design patents applications, citing efforts to reduce pendency and combat fraud”;
• a blog post describing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick “sent a letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber informing him that the U.S. government is planning to ‘march in’ on its patents” under the Bayh-Dole Act; and
• a piece indicating “[i]nvestigators have uncovered evidence that Russia is at least partly responsible for a recent hack of the computer system that manages federal court documents.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. The panel, consisting of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes, affirmed the jury’s verdict as to one of the patents, reversed the districts court’s JMOL that two of the asserted patents were not invalid, vacated the damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on the validity of two of the asserted patents and damages for all three patents. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, with one dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the other a takings case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, both in patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware and a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case appealed from the Southern District of California. The Federal Circuit also released an errata in a patent case decided in late July and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a party filed its reply brief in a pending en banc case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition in a design patent case, and the court denied two petitions in two other patent cases. Here are the details.