FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. A new petition was filed presenting a question about the abstract-idea exception relating to patentability. A new waiver of the right to respond was also filed in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal CIrcuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a grant of a preliminary injunction by a district court in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Most notably, this week the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. In other news, a new petition was filed in a pro se case, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, six new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and a pro se petition was denied. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” 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.

The Federal Circuit has been busy. This morning it released two precedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case and reverses in part final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion comes in a veterans case and affirms dismissal of veterans’ petitions for writs of mandamus. The nonprecedential orders do various things in various cases: deny a motion for permission to appeal, dismiss a petition for review, grant a motion to remand a trademark case back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, grant a motion to transfer a case, dismiss a petition for review as premature, grant a petition by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and grant a motion for summary affirmance. Late yesterday, the Feddral Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, other than the dismissal, which is only linked.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions, in a case that attracted an amicus brief, addresses a petition for review from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other opinion addressed an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. We’ve been following because this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap.