FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances.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 The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans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 The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders affirming appeals under Rule 36.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This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals. The first precedential opinion comes in a case involving allegations of infringement of numerous patents and addresses appeals from a summary judgment of infringement of a subset of claims, from a jury determination that remaining claims were not infringed, and from a determination that all asserted claims, including those infringed, were invalid. The second precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of a district court finding certain patent claims invalid, finding certain claims infringed, and entering a damage award in excess of $6 million. The third precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fourth precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning and late Friday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. They precedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from an arbitrator’s decision regarding termination from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The other nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The three orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion, which inspired an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, vacates a district court’s judgment of invalidity in a patent case. One nonprecedential opinion addresses subject matter jurisdiction; another addresses an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding certain claims unpatentable as obvious or as anticipated; and the third also addresses a patent appeal regarding obviousness. One order grants a motion to remand a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, two orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, and one order transfers an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finally, two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from orders, and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing the importance of training federal judges to manage their law clerks;
• an article highlighting the potential for the Federal Circuit to shape patent law in a pending appeal at the Federal Circuit; and
• an article considering the impact of a recent decision of the Federal Circuit on government contract cases.

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 nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case addressing a claim for a service-connected disability. Late yesterday and today, the court also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case holding that a failure to provide access to redacted information was a violation of due process. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders, one granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss a cross-appeal, one dismissing an appeal as untimely, and two dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the grant of the motion to voluntarily dismiss and the dismissal for untimeliness, and links to the other dismissals.