FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One of the opinions comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed various claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted judgment on the record with respect to other claims. The second and third opinions come in related patent infringement cases. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal.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This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five summary affirmances. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which ruled that the Navy did not violate a veteran’s veteran-preference rights. The five summary affirmances are nonprecedential orders affirming decisions under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms the dismissal of a pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but vacates an injunction the trial court imposed on the complainant. Five of the orders are dismissals, while one denies a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinion and denial of the petition, following by a link to the remaining orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case and six nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases. The court also released five nonprecedential orders: five summary affirm appeals and one grants a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and affirmed a judgment in a copyright case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the copyright case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit respectively affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims and affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit respectively transferred an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

• Supreme Court Backs Google in Copyright Fight With Oracle – A 6-2 ruling ended the decade-long copyright dispute between Google and Oracle over Google’s use of Java programming code in its Android operating system.
• Apple Can’t Appeal Patent Board Rulings After Qualcomm Deal – In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that a settlement agreement between Apple and Qualcomm bars Apple from challenging a PTAB decision that upheld two Qualcomm patents.
• Fitbit Wins Challenge to Health Technology Patent at Tribunal – On remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appel Board ruled in favor of Fitbit and concluded that parts of a health-monitoring patent were invalid as obvious.  

Here’s the latest.

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 potential impact of the Federal Circuit’s holding in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States on fees for searching and downloading federal case files, more commentary on the confusion generated by the Federal Circuit’s approach to patent eligibility in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, and news concerning Fitbit’s case decided by the Federal Circuit last Thursday.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Little Tucker Act case; four nonprecedential opinions in a case concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, an MSPB case, a veterans case, and a patent case; and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

• Federal Circuit Keeps Expanding Appointments Decision – The Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. decision was broadened to also encompass ex parte appeals according to the Federal Circuit’s precedential ruling in In re Boloro Global Ltd. on Tuesday.
• BofA’s $173M Refund Suit Belongs In Claims Court – The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded Bank of America Corp. v. United States to the Court of Federal claims because the district court lacked standing under Section 1346(a)(1) of the U.S. Judicial Code.
• Fitbit Given Another Shot At Nixing Biometrics Patent – Fitbit, pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., was granted a second chance to invalidate all of Valencell’s claims because of an erroneous standing ruling by the PTAB.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in a Tucker Act case and patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.