FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which attracted two amicus briefs, addresses an appeal from a final judgment of a district court holding certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Judge Cunningham filed an opinion dissenting in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions affirms four final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, determining all claims are unpatentable over asserted prior art. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protections Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer appeals to other United States appellate courts. Four of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one Rule 36 summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. One of the two precedential opinions affirms a summary judgment by a district court in a patent case. The other precedential opinion resolves an appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the order denies a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the order, and a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion concerns a “seven-day trip of two transcatheter heart valve systems in and out of San Francisco”—and whether this act of “importation” was exempt from patent infringement under the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Judge Lourie dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory language and precedent to exempt infringement in this situation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the denial of fees. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the orders deny petitions, while one dismisses an appeal. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing another appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the orders denying petitions, and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and attends to arguments related to claim construction and the determination of analogous art for purposes of a nonobviousness analysis. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. All three of the opinions address pro se appeals—two opinions dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and one affirms a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one dismissal, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgement of the United States Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the other addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecidential order. The opinion affirms a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, and another grants a motion to transfer a case to the Middle District of Alabama. The other three orders also dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and two of the orders and links to the three of the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a post-grant review, which held certain claims unpatentable as obvious or lacking written description. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and addresses an assertion by the government of a right to practice a patent and have a patent practiced on its behalf under a provision of a Bayh-Dole Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address jurisdiction, one affirms the rejection of proposed patent claims for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and one affirms the dismissal of a complaint due to the claims being timebarred. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—challenging both the Board’s claim construction and asserting that the Board’s decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The two nonprecedential opinions address appeals from decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, with one opinion sparking a dissent from Judge Reyna. The order grants a voluntary withdrawal of a petition for review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.