FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion affirms in part and reverses and remands in part for further proceedings a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of five claims raising statutory, contract, and constitutional issues. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Two cases that will be argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Freund v. McDonough. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed the case as moot and denied Freund’s request for class action and class certification. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, three new replies were filed in separate Merit Systems Protection Board cases all presenting the same question for review, and the Court denied two petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. The first order transmits a petition to a district court to be docketed as a notice of appeal, while the second order is a dismissal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and seven nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a district court’s judgment based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter. One of the orders transfers an appeal from to the Ninth Circuit, one terminates an appeal and transfers the case to the Court of Federal Claims, and one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus. The other four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion reversing, vacating, and remanding a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first grants a motion to remand appeals to the Court of Federal Claims. The others are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the introduction to the order remanding appeals, and the links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new opinion in an en banc case addressing design patent law’s nonobviousness requirement; seven new petitions raising questions related to nonobviousness, claim construction, infringement, appellate review, and damages; and three denials of petitions raising questions related to definiteness, claim construction, infringement, licenses, and reduction to practice. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a judgment of the Federal Circuit in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review in the Federal Circuit is a “jurisdictional requirement” and therefore “precludes equitable exceptions.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, vacated and remanded the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. This is our opinion summary.