FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential order denies motions to voluntarily dismiss an appeal in a patent case, while the nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first nonprecedential order grants a motion seeking transfer to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the second nonprecedential order grants a motion for summary affirmance, and the last three nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the precedential order, opinion, and first two nonprecedential orders, as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this case, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal given its finding that the appellant failed to prove standing. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of an arbitrator in a case in which a former employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons challenged his removal. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, three dismissals, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a dismissal by the Court of International Trade for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three of the nonprecedential opinions dismiss appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims—two for lack of jurisdiction and one for lack of a final judgment. Another two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The last nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found that a collection of imported products infringed certain patents, but also found certain redesigns not to infringe. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Two opinions address appeals from inter partes reexaminations before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Each of those appeals had a corresponding related appeal, which was subsequently dismissed as moot in a corresponding nonprecedential opinion. Finally, the fifth nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal regarding veterans’ disability benefits. The first nonprecedential order summarily affirms a judgment, another transfers an appeal to a district court, and the final two are dismissals. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case addressing obviousness and one addressing jurisdiction in a case involving an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to a district court and another dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order transferring a case, and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a veterans case. Notably, Judge Dyk concurred with the majority. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, both in patent cases. Finally the court released three nonprecedential orders summarily affirming judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

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

• a blog post about the oral argument in the Supreme Court case Amgen v. Sanofi;
• an article about “Centripetal Networks LLC urg[ing] the Federal Circuit to stop a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal’s validity review of a patent that was part of a wiped-out $1.9 billion verdict against Cisco Systems Inc.”; and
• another article about “the U.S. Supreme Court quickly pass[ing] on the opportunity to look at the Federal Circuit’s use of one-sentence Rule 36 rulings.”

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

• an article about “a bid by Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Corp and others to revive their challenge to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that made it harder to contest the validity of patents issued by the agency”;
• another article about the Federal Circuit’s skepticism about “allegations that [Facebook’s] news feed infringed on Usability Sciences’ 2014 patent”; and
• a blog post about the Federal Circuit denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Amazon.com, Inc.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, both in pro se cases; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases and a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case; three petitioners filed reply briefs in three takings cases; two amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case and one amicus brief was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and, finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a judicial disqualification case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.