FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders. The opinion addressed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding a disputed charge of insubordination. The five orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential dismissals and one nonprecedential erratum. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecedential dismissal.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

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. Three opinions address appeals from patent cases—two from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one from the District of Delaware. The additional two opinions address decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case, the government filed its merits brief. In addition, the Court set dates for oral arguments in both Rudisill v. McDonough and Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. As for pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the government waived its right to respond in one veterans case and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 summary affirmances.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion arises out of a government contracts case involving an agreement to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. The opinion addresses whether the requirement that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief is a jurisdictional requirement. A companion nonprecedential opinion addresses whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in partially dismissing a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the requirement. Another nonprecedential opinion released today resolves an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the patentability of claims. Each of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in which a district court held that a patent was ineligible for patenting. Specifically, the district court found that the claims at issue simply sought to automate prior art methods to minimize human error and replaced the human operator with a conventional machine. Two of the orders released today transfer cases, and one dismisses an appeal. Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and transfers and links to the dismissals.

Today, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential orders: two order the transfer of cases to a district court, two grant motions for remand, one denies a motion to transfer to a district court, and one grants unopposed motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the orders 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, an opening merits brief and an amicus brief were submitted in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. Five new petitions were filed, one in a personnel case and four related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed, one in response to a petition raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and two in response to a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. Finally, a reply in support of a petition was filed in a case addressing hazardous duty pay for federal employees. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing obviousness, a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case addressing an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims related to subject matter jurisdiction, and two nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the orders and links to the dismissal and the summary affirmance.