FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases affirming decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Vacate Judgment Following Evidence of Fraud – Joseph Marinelli at JDSupra.com commented on a recent decision by the Federal Circuit that may have implications in future attempts to vacate a final judgments based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
• Federal Circuit Revives Trimble Patent Claims in Jurisdiction Ruling – Blake Brittain from Reuters reported about the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. – Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin reported for NationalLawReview.com about how Apple was unable to prove that it had standing to appeal final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Here is the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming the United States Court of Federal Claims in a Tucker Act case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

On April 21, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. As we highlighted in our argument preview, the question presented to the Court was “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” In other words, the parties argued for and against the doctrine of assignor estoppel. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one reviewing a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other reviewing a decision of the Court of International Trade; two nonprecedential opinions, one reviewing another decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other in a patent case; a nonprecedential order in Oracle America, Inc. v. Oracle LLC, on remand from the Supreme Court; and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

• Consensus-Building Judge Taking the Reins at Federal Circuit – According to Perry Cooper at BloombergLaw.com, as the new Chief of the Federal Circuit, Judge Moore could try to bring the court together on sticky issues.
• Court Reverses Ruling Critics Said Left Feds Vulnerable to Retaliation, Citing ‘Magnitude’ of Errors – Eric Katz at GovernmentExecutive.com commented on a recent employment law decision by the Federal Circuit reversing the Merit Systems Protection Board.
• Australian Company Loses Ugg Trademark Battle – Yan Zhuang from the New York Times reported on a Federal Circuit trademark decision that reportedly “hits a nerve for Australians, who consider [Ugg] footwear a national, if unfashionable, symbol.”

Here is the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first is a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the other is a patent case appealed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one precedential opinion in patent case appealed from a district court, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance of a decision by the United State International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions of the opinions and the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent infringement cases, along with four Rule 36 summary affirmances of appeals of judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances.

One of the three cases on the Federal Circuit’s hearing schedule last week that attracted an amicus brief was Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. Tao presented several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. After the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication. Unsurprisingly, late last week a panel of the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case.