FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a military officer’s retirement status and affiliated retirement pay. The second precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court in a patent case and affirms the district court’s indefiniteness determination but vacates and remands its nonobviousness determination. Both of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals from judgments of the Eastern District of Texas granting motions for summary judgment of noninfringement, and the Federal Circuit affirms in both cases. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the reopening of a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and selected text from the order.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court is reviewing the Federal Circuit’s dismissal 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. This is our argument recap. 

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 13 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 46. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been highlighting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a judge in the District of Delaware to grant Hikma’s motion to dismiss Amarin’s inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. This is our argument preview.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lemon Bay Cove LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which held that the denial of a wetland permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers was not a categorical taking or regulatory taking of Lemon Bay’s land. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Four cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential dismissal. The opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment that all asserted patent claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article about a petition requesting the Supreme Court to “weigh in” on the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that created a new standard for how courts should review challenges to design patents”; and
• an article discussing a Federal Circuit opinion that “vacated [a] district court’s final judgment due to an erroneous jury instruction on obviousness.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. This is a patent case that attracted an amicus brief in support of reversal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently filed patent application on that process. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.