FedCircuitBlog

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Cooperman v. Social Security Administration, a pro se case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board that found “good cause to remove Mr. Cooperman from his position as an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration.” In a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Hughes, and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment “[b]ecause the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and because the Board did not otherwise err in its analysis.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case concerning obviousness. The court also released eight nonprecedential orders, which included a grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case, a grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, four summary affirmances, and two dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting a question related to the standard of review of obviousness determinations and a response brief addressing what constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction. Here are the details.

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

• an article highlighting aspects of the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge;
• an article expressing dissatisfaction with a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning the patentability of claimed ranges where the prior art discloses overlapping ranges; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning what constitutes a dispute from which a government contractor may seek immediate relief.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively vacated and remanded a judgment in a government contract case and reversed and affirmed in part in a patent case. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the government contract case. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the public release of additional prior orders and letters in the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. Notably, the orders continue to prohibit Judge Newman from being assigned to new panels of cases, and one order indicates the Committee conducting the investigation “will focus on the question whether Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation constitutes misconduct.” To that end, the Committee also set a deadline of July 5 for Judge Newman to submit “a brief limited to addressing the question whether Judge Newman’s refusal to undergo examinations, to provide medical records, and to sit for an interview with the Committee as described in the May 16 Order constitute misconduct and the appropriate remedy if the Committee were to make a finding of misconduct.” The Committee also indicated it will hear oral argument on the matter on July 13 in a closed-door hearing. Here is the full text of the announcement, with links to the orders.

Today, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” Here are the details.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions: two in related patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 50 cases this week. Of these 50 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 40. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we previously mentioned, four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs, and two of those cases are appeals from ex parte reexaminations involving the same appellant, Cellect, LLC. In In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”), the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument preview.