FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, a second in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a third in a case dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

• Trademark Modernization Act Becomes Law: Establishes New Procedures to Remove Deadwood Registrations, Restores Presumption of Irreparable Harm, and Protects the Independence of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board – The Trademark Modernization Act was signed into law on Sunday as part of a COVID-19 relief and government spending bill entitled the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.”
• One vet’s GI Bill fight could win benefits for millions of other students – A final decision from the Federal Circuit is expected soon, which may have an impact on students looking to enroll in college courses in the fall of 2021.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; and a nonprecedential opinion in another case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: two involving appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a patent infringement case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

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

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.