FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, four Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a patent case appealed from the District of Maryland. The second and third affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, links to the Rule 36 judgments, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in six patent cases, one takings case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, and two new replies were filed in patent cases raising questions related to notice-and-comment rulemaking and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion affirms a summary judgment of invalidity in a patent infringement suit. The nonprecedential opinion affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of an opposition. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. This week’s highlights include new petitions filed in a patent case raising questions related to Rule 36 and a pro se case raising questions related to Whistleblower Protection Act, a new brief in opposition filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility, and a new waiver of the right to respond in a third patent case raising questions related to prior art that may be asserted in inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There was a new petition filed in a patent case concerning questions about inter partes review, and there was a new amicus brief filed in another patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respecct to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinions in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, three new waivers of the right to respond were filed in another patent case, and the Court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to design patent law. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of the two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that it is reviewing this term. With respect to petitions, the Supreme Court granted a petition in a veterans case, Bufkin v. McDonough. In addition, five new petitions were filed, four new briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, four new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one reply brief was filed. Finally, the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case after a jury trial and bench trial in the Western District of Texas. The order transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion and selected text from the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. That opinion affirms a district court’s summary judgment in a patent case, holding asserted claims invalid for ineligible subject matter. Here is the introduction to the opinion.