FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case and two reply briefs were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case. Additionally, the Court denied petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and six Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the opinions addresses an appeal challenging several orders of a district court in a patent case. Another of the opinions challenges a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to vacate an order staying proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential dismissal. The opinion addresses an appeal from a district court’s judgment that all asserted patent claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a design patent case, a brief in opposition was filed in a veterans case, and the Court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns a “seven-day trip of two transcatheter heart valve systems in and out of San Francisco”—and whether this act of “importation” was exempt from patent infringement under the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Judge Lourie dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language and precedent to exempt infringement in this situation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of fees. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.  

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Frantzis v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal. The other grants a motion by both parties to stay an appeal until the only patent at issue expires, at which point the Clerk of Order is directed to dismiss the appeal. Here are the links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Another one of the opinions addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding asserted patent claims ineligible for patenting. The remaining two opinions address appeals from judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding certain claims unpatentable. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case, and an amicus brief was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.