FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. All three of the opinions address pro se appeals—two opinions dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and one affirms a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in a patent case and addresses issues of obviousness, infringement, and damages. The other precedential opinion comes in another patent case and addresses a challenge to analogous art findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders dismiss appeals. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one order dismissing an appeal. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable as obvious. This first opinion ultimately concludes that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The other precedential opinion also addresses an appeal of a decision of the PTAB, this one concluding that the PTAB abused its discretion in determining that a party failed to identify a field of endeavor and thus failed to establish analogous art for purposes of an obviousness analysis. Finally, the nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the United States Court of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing patentable subject matter, a precedential opinion in another patent case addressing an interference involving first-inventor-to-file patents and first-to-invent applications, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing eligibility for veterans benefits. The court also released a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court denied two petitions for rehearing raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also granted panel rehearing but denied as moot rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also denied a recent motion for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to transfers of cases. Notably, all three of these cases involved Apple Inc. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the motivation to combine prior art references in an obviousness analysis. The court also invited a response to a petition that raising questions related to the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court received an amicus brief in support of a petition raising a question related to the presumption of nexus in an obviousness analysis. Finally, the court received a reply in support of a petition raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to assignments of patents and standing and a new response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. The court also requested a reply from a petitioner in support of its combined petition, which raised questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied two petition raising questions related to the standard of review for a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.