FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reverses and remands a judgment if the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the court relied upon a legally erroneous construction of “surgical intervention” in addressing a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. One of the orders transfers an appeal. The other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and a link to the dismissal.

Four cases argued this month attracted amicus briefs. One was Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one precedential order, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from judgments arising out of a bench trial in the Western District of Louisiana in a patent case.  The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable for obviousness. The precedential order, which attracted amicus attention and a dissent joined by four judges, denies a sua sponte request for rehearing en banc. Two of the orders transfer cases, and one dismisses a set of appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the precedential order and transfers, and link to the dismissal.

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 Federal Circuit “upheld a U.S. trade tribunal’s decision that Google’s redesigns of products . . . were sufficient to avoid infringing Sonos’ multi-room wireless audio patents”;
• a blog post highlighting how a Federal Circuit decision “offers the important conclusion that a patentee has no standing to appeal an invalidity holding once the patent expires, absent some showing of likely infringement during the prior six years”; and
• an article about an argument before the Federal Circuit that a “more than $600 million judgment against NortonLifeLock for infringing Columbia University patents. . . is ‘indefensible’ and cannot stand.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a veterans case and a pro se case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and a reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which denied an early effective date for disability compensation. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It addresses a pro se challenge to a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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 discussing how “U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman asked a Washington, D.C., federal court on Friday to reject a bid from her fellow judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to end her lawsuit over their decision to suspend her from the bench”; and
• a similar article about how Judge Newman “argued in her opposition brief that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act violates the constitution.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.