FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits 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, three new petitions were filed with the Court in three other Merit Systems Protection Board cases, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case, and an amicus brief was filed in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit release two nonprecedential opinions. One opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion, which includes a concurrence-in-part and dissent-in-part from Judge Schall, addresses an appeal from a district court’s final judgment of invalidity with respect to the definiteness of certain patent claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed an examiner’s refusal to register a mark for failure to comply with the domicile address requirement. The nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Late yesterday evening, the Federal Circuit released an announcement addressing its operating status for February 13, 2024. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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 the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Conduct and Disability’s “rare decision affirming the suspension of a federal appeals court judge unleashed a flurry of calls to change the statutory framework for evaluating judges for potential disability and misconduct”;
• an article noting how Judge Newman “complained . . . that she had been taken off an email list that goes to all judges”; and
• another article highlighting how “[p]arts of Judge Pauline Newman’s lawsuit challenging her suspension from hearing cases on the Federal Circuit will move forward, though its prospects are dim after a federal judge denied her preliminary relief.”

Today, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order in Judge Newman’s lawsuit, which asserts facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the statutory provision creating circuit judicial councils. The opinion and order denies Judge Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have “prohibit[ed] Defendants from continuing her suspension from new case assignments and from proceeding with any further disciplinary proceedings until the matter is transferred to the judicial council of another circuit.” The opinion and order also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but three of Judge Newman’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion and order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses the application of the Barring Act to the settlement of Combat-Related Special Compensation claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a district court judgment in a patent case. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review, which held certain claims unpatentable as obvious or lacking written description. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and addresses an assertion by the government of a right to practice a patent and have a patent practiced on its behalf under a provision of a Bayh-Dole Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address jurisdiction, one affirms the rejection of proposed patent claims for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and one affirms the dismissal of a complaint due to the claims being timebarred. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

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 “Judge Pauline Newman on Wednesday lost a bid to persuade the federal court system’s governing body to review her suspension from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”;
• a similar article about how “Judge Pauline Newman . . . faces a difficult path to getting reinstated without complying with an investigation into her mental fitness”; and
• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit “met to consider a design patent appeal en banc for the first time in more than 15 years.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit ultimately reversed, vacated, and remanded portions of the Board’s decisions. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.