FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four nonprecedential orders. Both opinions affirm judgments of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The first order remands a case to the Central District of California. The second transfers a case to the Southern District of Ohio. The last two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the remaining orders.

District Court Thwarts $100 Million Damages Award, Finding Litigation Conduct Exceptional – On IPWatchDog, Gene Quinn writes about a long, drawn-out patent infringement battle that “saw action in front of a jury, at the district court, at the PTAB, at the Federal Circuit, and even . . . the Supreme Court.”

Oracle Files Yet Another JEDI Challenge with the U.S. Supreme Court – Sebastian Moss on DataCenterDynamics.com reports that the “US military appears trapped in an endless conflict with no clear winner.”

Performance-Based Actions: How Much Is Too Much? – In an article on FedSmith.com, Robbie Kunreuther reflects on a decision by the Federal Circuit concerning “unacceptable performance cases and how they should be addressed.”

• How to Choose the Next Federal Circuit Judge: Stick with Experience – Retired Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit shares his thoughts on a future nominee to the Federal Circuit.
• In “Landmark” Ruling, Court Raises Threshold for Firing Feds – The Federal Circuit ruled that agencies must show cause when putting employees on a performance improvement plan in Santos v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
• Inventors, Tech Are Taking The Brunt Of Alice Axes – Researchers from Stanford Law School published a study on patent eligibility following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Alice.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing eligible subject matter. Additionally, the court issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in a government contract case involving a bid protest. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 judgments.