FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. Here is the introduction to the opinion. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his opening merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough, a case that raises questions regarding equitable tolling and retroactive disability benefits. As for cases with pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a veterans case; following a Supreme Court request in January, the government submitted the view of the United States in a patent case that raises a question related to the intersection of the Seventh Amendment and claim construction on appeal; and a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case concerning differential pay for federal employees serving on active duty. Finally, the Court denied petitions in three patent cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Northern District of California, vacating part of a preliminary injunction and remanding the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order in a case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, granting an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross-appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

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

• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit opinion “stands as an important warning” to patent holders who send notice letters;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s split in an “unusual” case concerning the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• a third article addressing a recent Federal Circuit case that “clarifies the scope of incorporation by reference” in government contracts.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented, disagreeing with the majority’s decision to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this case, the Federal Circuit reverses the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued two nonprecedential orders and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which had dismissed an appeal as moot. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. One dismisses a petition for review for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case; one summarily affirms; and one grants a petition to withdraw a petition for writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 arguing that in patent cases the Federal Circuit recently strayed from the Supreme Court’s “flexible approach to obviousness”;
• a blog post analyzing the Federal Circuit’s alleged “improper destabilization of settled res judicata principles” in patent cases;
• another article discussing how the “Federal Circuit has provided uniformity” regarding the proper interpretation of the America Invents Act’s estoppel provision; and
• a third article identifying primary takeaways from a recent Federal Circuit ruling addressing patent law’s experimental-use doctrine and on-sale bar.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The second comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition to transfer a case to the Northern District of California; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denies petitions for writs of mandamus; and one denies a petition and cross-petition to appeal from an order of the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in a patent case, one filed by a pro se petitioner in a veterans case, and one by another pro se petitioner in an employment case. Additionally, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility; a brief in opposition was filed in another patent eligibility case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in a patent case concerning standing; and a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question about the Chevron doctrine’s applicability in veterans cases. Finally, the Court denied three petitions: two in takings cases and one in a patent case. Here are the details.