FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Three of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in an appeal from the District of Delaware. In two nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions in cases originating in the Western District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. The three additional nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the court’s majority opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a statute limiting educational assistance applies to veterans with multiple periods of service. Notably, both Judge Newman and Judge Reyna filed separate dissenting opinions. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions today. One comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and three come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals, and one grants motions to sever claims and transfer remaining claims to the District of Colorado. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order granting the motions, and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article noting how a “[f]ederal judge sitting atop mound of patent litigation loses perch with equitable-distribution order”;
• another article addressing how “Netflix [won] attorneys’ fees for California litigation at Federal Circuit”;
• a third article discussing how an engineer filed an amicus brief critiquing a Federal Circuit decision that would allegedly “let federal agencies ‘cut corners’ and render public accountability ‘superfluous.’”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, which awarded attorneys’ fees with respect to the underlying California action but not with respect to related proceedings in Delaware and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part from the panel’s judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One summarily affirms; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and two grant joint motions to voluntarily dismiss. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing venue in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary”;
• an article analyzing arguments recently made for why a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post detailing noting “its 15th annual list of top patent stories [for 2021]”;
• another blog post assessing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “was an easy mandamus transfer”; and
• yet another blog post discussing how “Professor Jessica Litman has a fascinating forthcoming book chapter on the history of the Lanham Act and the influence of Edward S. Rogers.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a whistleblower retaliation case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll dissented-in-part from the holding in the patent case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Eastern District of Texas to require transfer of a patent case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently denied a mandamus petition;
• another article analyzing the Federal Circuit’s recent rejection of constitutional challenges to inter partes revew proceedings;
• another article focusing on how recent Federal Circuit decisions “have strengthened arguments for invalidating drug patents in two areas”; and
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit assesses the equitable powers of a legislative court: the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.”