This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, subject to reinstatement; one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute; and one grants a voluntary motion to dismiss. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case and one in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued two separate nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
This month we highlight four papers, two related to institutional design and two related to patent law. The first paper addresses the creation of specialized courts and why these courts persist. The second paper focuses on the problem of myopia in comparative institutional analyses of legal institutions and the need to incorporate comparative failure analysis. The third and fourth papers address patent law, respectively, the creation of a database to conduct empirical studies of patent litigation in U.S. district courts, and the U.S. Patent Office’s attempts to provide clarity in the area of patent eligibility through guidance documents.