FedCircuitBlog

Today, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion arises out of a government contracts case involving an agreement to design and build a military compound in Afghanistan. The opinion addresses whether the requirement that claims submitted under the Contract Disputes Act specify the precise dollar amount sought as relief is a jurisdictional requirement. A companion nonprecedential opinion addresses whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in partially dismissing a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the requirement. Another nonprecedential opinion released today resolves an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the patentability of claims. Each of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions 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 The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions today.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 Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders.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.

This morning The Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s decision to deny a motion to exclude evidence, vacates the Board’s decision as to the obviousness of certain claims, and remands the case for the limited purpose of addressing certain claim limitations. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia, concluding that the Patent Act requires an inventor to be a natural person. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute; one grants the transfer of an appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments and an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.