FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a sua sponte order of the District of Delaware ordering a witness to appear in person for testimony regarding potential fraud on the court. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms in part and dismisses in part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second affirms a judgment of the District of Utah in a patent infringement case, while the third affirms a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in a related case based on collateral estoppel. The fourth affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion affirms in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third vacates and remands another judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and all the orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, three new replies were filed in separate Merit Systems Protection Board cases all presenting the same question for review, and the Court denied two petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in an en banc design patent case. In it, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. In the second precedential opinion, a panel vacated and remanded a judgment of Central District Court of California in a patent infringement case over a dissent by Judge Mayer. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first affirms two separate dismissals by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the third dismisses an appeal in a veterans case for lack of jurisdiction, and the fourth affirms another dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the District of Delaware regarding an award of attorney’s fees in a patent case. The second affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion partially reverses a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. All of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. The first opinion affirms a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied review and dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The second opinion vacates and remands a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in a government contract case. The orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.