FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an international trade dispute. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case. One of the nonprecedential orders grants a motion for summary affirmance, while two of the orders transfer cases. The remaining two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, plus links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinions affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second affirms a judgment of the Western District of Wisconsin in a patent case. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the second in an appeal from the International Trade Commission. The five nonprecedential orders were all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the District of Delaware regarding an award of attorney’s fees in a patent case. The second affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third affirms a judgment of the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion partially reverses a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. All of the orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one dismissal, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgement of the United States Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the other addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, addresses the application of the Barring Act to the settlement of Combat-Related Special Compensation claims. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a district court judgment in a patent case. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a response brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a contract case; the government waived its right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in a patent case addressing inter partes review estoppel; and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, fourteen amicus brief were filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case concerning the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a pro se case. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “did not improperly place the burden of persuasion for proving unpatentability of proposed substitute claims . . . on [the patent owner].”
• another article highlighting an upcoming Federal Circuit argument concerning constitutional standing; and
• a blog post discussing “the scope of ‘comparison prior art’ available for the ordinary observer infringement analysis” in design patent cases.