FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the orders remands a case, and the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and remand order and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case along with three nonprecedential opinions. The precedential patent opinion addresses divided infringement and principles of vicarious liability. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a takings case, while the other two come in pro se cases. The court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential order, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential order denies motions to voluntarily dismiss an appeal in a patent case, while the nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first nonprecedential order grants a motion seeking transfer to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the second nonprecedential order grants a motion for summary affirmance, and the last three nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the precedential order, opinion, and first two nonprecedential orders, as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. The first two nonprecedential opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the third vacates and remands a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. Two of the precedential opinions come in patent cases. Notably, in one of these two cases Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. The third precedential opinion affirms the dismissal of an appeal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an employment case, and the nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders.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.