FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and six nonprecedential orders. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from a district court. Notably, Judge Bryson concurred in part and dissented in part. The other two opinions come in veterans cases. One of the orders comes in a pro se appeal, while all the other orders dismiss cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the third affirms the the Court of Federal Claims’s denial of a petition to review a Special Master’s dismissal of a claim under the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the fourth affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims concerning a veteran’s claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders affirming appeals under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions. Specifically, the court released a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly determined that no remand to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals was required when denying a plaintiff’s claim. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case in which the Court of Federal Claims dismissed a plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent infringement case in which the parties disputed whether settlement agreements were discoverable or privileged. Finally, the court released a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.