FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses a challenge to the denial of monetary and injunctive relief after a jury determination of willful infringement in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.  

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new denials of petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases. These petitions raised questions related to claim construction, the scope of inter partes review proceedings, and the evidentiary basis to prove the existence of prior art.  Here are the details.

On Monday, March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court will review the Federal Circuit’s resolution of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. The statutory provision in question is 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• an article addressing how “[c]olleagues of Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman asked a federal district court judge to throw out what’s left of her lawsuit challenging her suspension from hearing cases”; and
• a similar article discussing how the “Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday that it that it should dismiss Judge Pauline Newman’s remaining challenges to . . . because all of Newman’s claims ‘fail as a matter of law’.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the orders deny petitions, while one dismisses an appeal. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing another appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the orders denying petitions, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Another addresses an appeal from a district court judgment and accompanying order in a patent case mandating the correction of inventorship of several patents. The third addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which held that certain claims had not been shown to be unpatentable as obvious in view of asserted prior art. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released one dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two dismissals. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from two decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to 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, the petitioner’s reply brief was filed in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional or allows for equitable tolling. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in another pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and attends to arguments related to claim construction and the determination of analogous art for purposes of a nonobviousness analysis. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.