This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; the second comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; and the third comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, in the trade case, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the District of South Carolina, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, respectively. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, a link to the dismissal, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
- another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
- a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a precedential order granting two petitions for writ of mandamus against the Western District of Texas to dismiss or transfer cases. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s decision that patent claims are not patentable but instead obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.