FedCircuitBlog

Two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed an administrative judge’s decision that a statutory provision requires the Office of Personnel Management “to divide an annuity supplement only if expressly provided for in a court order.” Judge Prost authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment. In particular, the court held “that OPM cannot divide a retiree’s annuity supplement unless the division of the supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion and one of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal from a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement claim. One of the orders grants a motion to withdraw a petition while the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

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

• an article reporting how “President Donald Trump said he might go to the Supreme Court to personally watch oral arguments on whether the bulk of his tariffs pass legal muster, in what would be a highly unusual spectacle”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied a move from a Montana lawmaker seeking to intervene as the high court takes up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff authority”;
• an article explaining how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed rules . . . that would prevent inter partes reviews challenging patents from being instituted in many scenarios”; and
• an article highlighting how “John Squires, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced . . . [that] he will reclaim authority over decisions on whether to allow challenges of approved patent applications under inter partes and post-grant reviews.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and two additional nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. One of the opinions comes in a patent infringement case, and the other comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the closure of the Circuit Library and suspension of all public and support services until further notice due to the lapse in federal appropriations. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Both opinions come in pro se appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 predicting “[w]hy the Supreme Court may choose to uphold Trump’s tariffs: ‘It would be incredibly disruptive to unscramble those eggs’”;
• an article indicating the “U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear new patent cases for nearly three years has frustrated parties that suffer appellate losses and left the Federal Circuit as the final arbiter over legal disputes that divide the patent bar”;
• a blog post reporting how a “number of amici weighed in . . .  to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether, “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act”; and
• an article discussing how a “recent U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling — now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — threatens to impose retroactive duties on importers of solar cells and modules.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, and both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims–one in a vaccine case and one in a government contract case. Here are introductions to the opinions.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the case, C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.R. Bard challenges rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation, among other issues. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, an errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and Rule 36 judgment.