FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Southern District of California. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and an errata. The lone precedential opinion comes in an international trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance, dismissals, and errata.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an erratum. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, all four also come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition for writ of mandamus and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, as well as links to dismissal and erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, ten nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The opinion affirms a grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a pro se case. One of the orders summarily affirms a final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, while four of the orders transfer cases. Five of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion, summary affirmance, and transfers, as well as links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a patent case decided by the District of Colorado. Notably, the Federal Circuit held “that a cause of action arises” under Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act “where a party falsely claims that it possesses a patent on a product feature and advertises that product feature in a manner that causes consumers to be misled about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of its product.” The three orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and issue preclusion. The court also denied two petitions. One raised a question related to the relationship of claim construction and unpatentability arguments in inter partes review proceedings. The other raised questions related to means-plus-function claims and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 four recent opinions, four new cases, new briefing in three cases, and a recent oral argument. 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 discussing a request for rehearing of a Federal Circuit decision finding “that Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions can render patent claims invalid in later U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proceedings”; and
• an article reporting on the Federal Circuit’s opinion affirming “most aspects of an obviousness ruling issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated radio communications patent claims owned by Philips.”

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision to reject Apple Inc.’s request to “expedite oral arguments in its appeal challenging” a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which banned the sale of Apple Watches with a blood oxygen feature; and
• an article detailing how in a recent decision the Federal Circuit “sided with Apple Inc.,” ending a decade-long patent dispute brought by the University of Wisconsin’s patent licensing arm involving “several generations of allegedly infringing processors used in iPhones and iPads.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinions affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Wisconsin in a patent case. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the second in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. The five nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.