FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential dismissals and one nonprecedential erratum. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential dismissal. Here are links to the dismissals and the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in three appeals between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. involving “a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that inventions described in Masimo’s patents were obvious and therefore unpatentable”;
• an article about how LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations holds the potential to make changes to the longstanding test for design patent obviousness; and
• an article analyzing the potential impact of a former soldier’s argument that the “U.S. Supreme Court [should] reverse a Federal Circuit decision that he claimed wrongly reduced his access to increased benefits Congress granted to wartime veterans.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case also involving trade secrets. This case was appealed from the Central District of California. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article detailing how “[t]hree judges of the Federal Circuit wrestled at oral argument with whether a trial court properly prevented publication of a patent application . . .”;
• another article discussing the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a “district court’s finding that a patent claim does not fail the written description requirement merely because the specification fails to explicitly state a negative claim limitation”;
• another article detailing how the Federal Circuit has considered whether “USPTO reexam estoppel orders [are] appealable”; and
• yet another article stating that the Federal Circuit would hear a case “that threatens the statutory presumption afforded copyright registration.”