FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which inspired an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, vacates a district court’s judgment of invalidity in a patent case. One nonprecedential opinion addresses subject matter jurisdiction; another addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious or as anticipated; and the third also addresses a patent appeal regarding obviousness. One order grants a motion to remand a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and one order transfers an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case addressing obviousness and one addressing jurisdiction in a case involving an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to a district court and another dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order transferring a case, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied nine petitions. 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, Amgen filed its opening merits brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, which concerns patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed with the Court, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel, and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, both in pro se cases; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases and a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case; three petitioners filed reply briefs in three takings cases; two amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case and one amicus brief was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and, finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a judicial disqualification case and two in pro se cases. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a case raising a question concerning judicial disqualification; a brief in opposition was submitted in another veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; the government waived its right to respond in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; and one reply brief was submitted in a patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The case addresses issues related to direct infringement and inducement of infringement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in employment and government contract cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Federal Claims respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit agreed that a claim was barred by a six-year statute of limitations. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and addresses issues related to spoliation of evidence. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued 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 in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The first opinion vacates a board decision for failure to tie its construction of a claim term to the patent’s specification. The second opinion affirms in part and vacates in part board determinations of unpatentability. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri. The second comes in veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.