FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases; one comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and the fourth comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in appeals of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; another comes in an appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; another comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; and the fourth comes in the form of a pro se petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases”;
• an article analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce”;
• an article reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension”; and
• a blog post commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a case we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap. 

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 65 cases. Of the 65 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in January attracted amicus briefs. That case is Apple Inc. v. Squires. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. All three come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and five nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case and, notably, includes an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. The other precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Three of the five nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases; one comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, and a Rule 36 judgment. The opinion comes in patent infringement case that was previously before the Federal Circuit. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case covering trade secret misappropriation and correction of inventorship. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, two in pro se appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the other dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition, along with links to the other orders and the Rule 36 judgments.