FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and nine nonprecedential orders. The opinion upheld a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Notably, one of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. The opinion affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion rejects the argument the Patent Trial and Appeal Board failed to address several arguments made in two inter partes review proceedings. The court found no error in the how the Board understood the arguments at issue, but in a dissenting opinion Judge Dyk disagrees with the court. Two of the four orders are dismissals, while the other two transfer cases—one to a circuit court of appeals and another to a district court. Here is the introduction to the precedential opinion, selected text from the transfers, and links to the dismissals.

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

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a review of an arbitrator’s award, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The following five new petitions were submitted to the Court: (1) Primbas, et al. v. Iancu, (2) Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., et al., (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., (4) Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., and (5) Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Also, in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Willowood, LLC submitted its reply to Syngenta’s brief in opposition. Willowood claims Syngenta’s brief avoids the key issues raised in the petition.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court received two waivers of right to respond for the petitions of Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank and Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases, and one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• The Supreme Court received five new petitions this week: (1) Thomas v. Iancu, (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., (3) Louis A. Piccone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, (4) Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al., and (5) Michael A. Henry-Bey v. Hector Castro, et al.
• Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC.
• Finally, the Court denied petitions in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc. and Ford Motor Co. v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a patent case, an international trade case, and a case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in another case affirming the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.