FedCircuitBlog

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion reversing, vacating, and remanding a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first grants a motion to remand appeals to the Court of Federal Claims. The others are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the introduction to the order remanding appeals, and the links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new opinion in an en banc case addressing design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement; seven new petitions raising questions related to nonobviousness, claim construction, infringement, appellate review, and damages; and three denials of petitions raising questions related to definiteness, claim construction, infringement, licenses, and reduction to practice. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a judgment of the Federal Circuit in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review in the Federal Circuit is a “jurisdictional requirement” and therefore “precludes equitable exceptions.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, vacated and remanded the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respecct to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinions in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, three new waivers of the right to respond were filed in another patent case, and the Court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to design patent law. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order. The order dismisses an appeal from the Eastern District of Texas for failing to file a brief in the specified time. Here is the link to the order.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ireland v. United States, a Little Tucker Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Western District of Texas to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll that was joined by Judges Lourie and Linn, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the case for failure to state a claim because “[t]he plain language of § 9021(b) does not create a mandatory payment obligation between the Secretary and ‘any covered individual.’” This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in an en banc design patent case. In it, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. In the second precedential opinion, a panel vacated and remanded a judgment of Central District Court of California in a patent infringement case over a dissent by Judge Mayer. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first affirms two separate dismissals by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the third dismisses an appeal in a veterans case for lack of jurisdiction, and the fourth affirms another dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Today the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case. In the opinion, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. The court decided to apply “the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents.” Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion. We will post an opinion summary later this week.