FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial Appeal Board, while the second and third opinions come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court released three Rule 36 judgments and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.

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

• an article discussing how Judge Albright “said the Federal Circuit’s rulings had ‘muddled what facts are relevant’ in determining which court can hear the case faster”;
• a blog post addressing the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “[a] design [patent] claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim”;
• another article detailing how in an opposition to a trademark “an opposer cannot show standing by merely showing the registrant competes with the opposer and receives a benefit from an unlawful trademark”; and
• another post explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit brought some measure of clarity to the question [of proper venue] recently when it affirmed a District Court dismissal of an ANDA action on improper venue grounds.”

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

• an article about last Friday’s Fed Circuit Blog symposium, noting how two law professors “argued . . . that it might be time to reevaluate the 40-year ‘experiment’ of the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about Friday’s symposium, explaining that other “law professors . . . were torn between whether the appeals court was ‘overstepping’ or reacting rationally to a judge who does not always take the court’s direction”;
• a blog post discussing the backgrounds of the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit ruling that a “heart monitor patent . . . is invalid for claiming only an abstract idea.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying as moot a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Eastern District of Texas to rule on a motion to dismiss or transfer venue. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.