This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates the Board’s affirmance of an examiner’s final rejection of claims. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Affairs. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential opinions. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California; one grants a petition for a writ of mandamus to undo an order by the Eastern District of Texas transferring two cases to the Central District of California; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.
Opinions & Orders – January 6, 2023
This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment in an interference proceeding. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, both patent cases involve the same parties. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Opinions & Orders – August 30, 2022
This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denial of a request for a default order. The Federal Circuit also released two errata and a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion to lift a stay and remand to the Court of Federal Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the errata.
Opinions & Orders – August 2, 2022
This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Opinions & Orders – July 14, 2022
This morning the Federal Circuit released nonprecedential opinions in two separate patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting in part and denying in part a motion for sanctions and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Opinions & Orders – May 23, 2022
This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order granting petitions to order the Eastern District of Texas to transfer three consolidated cases to the Northern District of California. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.
Recent Supreme Court Activity
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply merits brief in George v. McDonough, a case concerning the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As to cases with pending petitions, the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case challenging the Federal Circuit’s application of the Chevron doctrine. Also, following a Supreme Court request last fall, the government finally submitted the view of the United States in a patent case raising questions related to preclusion. The Court also denied three petitions: one in a government contracts case and two in patent cases. Here are the details.
Recent Supreme Court Activity
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.
Recent Supreme Court Activity
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions have been filed, both in patent cases. In addition, five amicus briefs were submitted in a case presenting a challenge to the Chevron doctrine. Also, the government waived its right right to respond in a pro se case. Here are the details.
Recent News on the Federal Circuit
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article analyzing cases and an emerging trend regarding how “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners”;
- a blog post detailing how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference consider[ed] Judge Albright’s problematic patent court”;
- another blog post evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021”; and
- another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of [a government contract] award prejudiced it.”