FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Another addresses an appeal from a district court judgment and accompanying order in a patent case mandating the correction of inventorship of several patents. The third addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which held that certain claims had not been shown to be unpatentable as obvious in view of asserted prior art. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released one dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.  

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions in a patent and two veterans cases. Late yesterday and today the court also released three nonprecedential orders; two transfer appeals and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first comes in a pro se employment case and the second addresses a claim for monetary damages for enslavement of the claimant’s Native American ancestors. The court also released five nonprecedential orders as well as a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received the four new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) Strand v. United States, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., (3) HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., and (4) Martin v. Department of Homeland Security.
• Both the United States in Campbell v. United States and Ericsson, Inc. in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson submitted briefs in opposition to petitions.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Andrea Lea in Lea v. United States and the second by Jake LaTurner in LaTurner v. United States.
• Five amicus briefs were filed in three cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., (2) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., and (3) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co.

Here are the details.