FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively vacated and remanded a judgment in a government contract case and reversed and affirmed in part in a patent case. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the government contract case. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two in Merit Systems Protection Board cases, one in a patent case, and one dismissing an appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 this week in George v. McDonough, a case addressing veterans law. While no new petitions have been filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Additionally, two waivers of right to respond and a reply brief were filed in other patent cases. Moreover, two amicus briefs were submitted this past week: one in a patent case raising questions related to enhanced damages and one in a veterans case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in two cases brought by pro se petitioners. 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, since our last update there is no new activity to report. Furthermore, no new petitions have been filed. That said, the government filed two waivers of right to respond; a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; and the Court denied certiorari in five cases: two in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, one in a patent case, and one in a case filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. The first two opinions come in cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and concern decisions regarding obviousness. The third opinion comes in a case appealed from the District of Minnesota and concerns a grant of summary judgment of no induced infringement. The final opinion comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the fifth comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of North Carolina. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received one new cross-petition for writ of certiorari in Hologic, Inc. v. Minvera Surgical, Inc.
• One new response to the petition in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. was filed with the Court by Hologic.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. in support of Minerva, the first by Engine Advocacy and the second by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Rutila v. Department of Transportation was filed with the Court by the Department of Transportation.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in two cases: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp. and (2) Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• One new petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court in Rutila v. Department of Transportation.
• Two reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by HZNP in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. and the second by Whitserve in Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• One amicus brief was filed with the Court in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research by a group of Intellectual Property Professors.
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court by RPX in IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.

Here are the details.