FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment of the Western District of Texas in a patent case. All four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

As we previously reported, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a judgment of the Federal Circuit in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review in the Federal Circuit is a “jurisdictional requirement” and therefore “precludes equitable exceptions.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, vacated and remanded the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in an en banc design patent case. In it, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. In the second precedential opinion, a panel vacated and remanded a judgment of Central District Court of California in a patent infringement case over a dissent by Judge Mayer. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first affirms two separate dismissals by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the third dismisses an appeal in a veterans case for lack of jurisdiction, and the fourth affirms another dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of the two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that it is reviewing this term. With respect to petitions, the Supreme Court granted a petition in a veterans case, Bufkin v. McDonough. In addition, five new petitions were filed, four new briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, four new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one reply brief was filed. Finally, the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court is reviewing during its current term. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the deadline for a federal employee to appeal an adverse judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court today held that the deadline is not jurisdictional. The Court, however, did not reach the question of whether, as a result, equitable tolling is available, instead remanding the case for the Federal Circuit to rule on that issue. Here is the introduction to the Court’s opinion. We will provide an opinion summary next week.

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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case and two reply briefs were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case. Additionally, the Court denied petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court is reviewing the Federal Circuit’s dismissal of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. This is our argument recap. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a design patent case, a brief in opposition was filed in a veterans case, and the Court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case, and an amicus brief was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.