FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bee v. United States, a case involving correction of military records that we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appealed the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. All four opinions come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

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

• an article suggesting that “[w]hether machine learning is patent eligible depends upon whether you ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how “the majority of Schedule A cases ‘involve allegations of trademark or design patent infringement, though some allege violations of copyrights or of utility patents”;
• a blog post highlighting highlighting how, “[i]n the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what”; and
• a blog post covering how the USPTO’s “‘settled expectations’ policy” for denying petitions for inter partes review “now has a second challenger at the Supreme Court.”

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief or the court has appointed amicus counsel. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight three recent opinions in cases raising questions related to military records, tax refunds, and invalidity for lack of enablement, and one order dismissing an appeal. In addition, we highlight three newly identified cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits. As for new briefing, we highlight three response briefs in cases that raised questions related to infringement, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; one principal and response brief in a case that raised copyright and patent questions; three reply briefs in cases that raised questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; and seven new amicus briefs in one case that raised a question related to infringement. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to claim construction and veterans educational assistance benefits. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a patent case appealed form the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the other two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the first order as well as links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post discussing how, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace”; and
• a report analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving sanctions appealed form the Central District of Illinois, and the other opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. One of the nonprecedential orders summarily affirms an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in response to a patent case appealed form the International Trade Commission, two come in response to petitions to review final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than dismissals, as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two pro se cases, and four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in response to a petition to review an arbitrator’s decision, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. Here are the introductions to the opinions.