FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions address appeals from judgements of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the patentability of claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment in a patent case decided by a Texas district court. One nonprecedential order transfers a case, and two are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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. One came in a patent case addressing both joinder in inter partes review proceedings and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The other came in a case addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, three waivers of right to respond were filed in the same patent case, and a brief in opposition was filed in another patent case addressing joint inventorship. Finally, the Court denied nine petitions in three patent cases, a trade case, and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One opinion dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Another opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to sustain the removal of a former employee of the Army. Two of the orders transfer cases to district courts and the third transfers a case to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential orders. Three grant summary affirmance in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and three dismissal appeals. Here are the introductions to the summary affirmances and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five nonprecedential orders.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.