FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and involving the same parties. One comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the outcome of a patent case originating at the International Trade Commission;
• a post discussing how the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that claims did not meet the requirement of eligibility; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that UGG AUSTRALIA was a valid trademark and not generic; and
• another article discussing how two recent Federal Circuit decisions may be “welcome news for federal employees at all agencies.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first opinion reviews a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining a charge of conduct unbecoming of a federal employee. The second opinion addresses jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in employment cases. The precedential patent opinion addresses eligibility. The two precedential employment opinions address the interpretation and application of 38 U.S.C. § 714, which governs the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or alleged misconduct. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in one of these employment cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, and that opinion addresses claim construction. 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 and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion vacating a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction, a precedential opinion in a trade case, and a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a decision of ineligibility in a patent case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Newman dissented. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one reviewing a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other reviewing a decision of the Court of International Trade; two nonprecedential opinions, one reviewing another decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other in a patent case; a nonprecedential order in Oracle America, Inc. v. Oracle LLC, on remand from the Supreme Court; and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas both to rule on a pending motion to transfer and to stay all other proceedings until that motion is resolved. The Federal Circuit also released five Rule 36 judgments. Here is text from the order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Guest Post by Blair E. Thompson

In 2020, the Federal Circuit addressed important questions regarding “pro-claimant” policies and rules governing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also approved VA’s interpretation of its regulation regarding discharges due to “willful and persistent misconduct” and paved the way for challenges to VA’s internal adjudication policies and procedures manual.