FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday afternoon the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, which were dismissals. This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders and two Rule 36 judgments. Two of these orders transfer cases to district courts, while three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the transfers as well as links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Yesterday afternoon the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, which were all dismissals. This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, while the second opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first order transfers a case to the District of Arizona, while the second order is another dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and transfer as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a patent case raising questions related to Judge Newman’s removal from her duties, Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the judicial exception to patentability for abstract ideas. The Court also received one new reply brief in support of a petition filed in another patent case raising a question related to standing. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three Rule 36 judgments. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. The first two nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the third vacates and remands a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion late last month in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s denial of an antisuit injunction sought by Lenovo against Ericsson. Lenovo sought to prevent Ericsson from enforcing injunctions it was awarded in Colombian and Brazilian cases preventing Lenovo from infringing Ericsson’s patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s denial and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary

In late September the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ACLR, LLR v. US, a government contract case that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a grant of summary judgment by the Court of Federal Claims on ACLR’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and recovery of certain termination-for-convenience damages. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government based on ACLR’s purported failure to keep records sufficient to establish costs it was seeking to recover as damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Stark that was joined by Judge Prost and Judge Hughes. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article predicting how “[t]wo proposed laws affecting patents may come up for vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee after the election”;
• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s opinions in patent cases in September;
• a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision that vacated a “denial of an anti-suit injunction in a major FRAND licensing dispute”; and
• an article reporting how a “federal judge in Minnesota recused himself from a patent case more than five years into proceedings after the Federal Circuit reversed his interpretation of a key patent term.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and an erratum. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a case decided by the Court of Federal Claims involving a challenge to a decision of the Board for Correction of Naval Records. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.