This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions in a patent and two veterans cases. Late yesterday and today the court also released three nonprecedential orders; two transfer appeals and one dismisses an appeal.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This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.
Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.
Here are the introductions to the opinions.