FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36, and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Virginia. The Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of no invalidity based on a prior offer for sale in the United States. The second precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment that rejected illegal exaction claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed a holding invalidating claims for obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential dismissals.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 Each of the two nonprecedential opinions affirms a judgment—one of a district court in a patent case turning on patent eligibility, another of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.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This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released another nonprecidential order. The opinion affirms a judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, and another grants a motion to transfer a case to the Middle District of Alabama. The other three orders also dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and two of the orders and links to the three of the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Mantissa Corp. v. Ondot Systems, Inc., (2) Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and (3) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp.
• Three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by Actavis in HZNP Finance Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., the second by CBS in Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., and the third by Biomarin in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 19 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Steve Morsa submitted the only petition for writ of certiorari coming from the Federal Circuit this week in Morsa v. Iancu.
• For both Lea v. United States and LaTurner v. United States the government filed a singular brief in opposition opposing a writ for either petition.
• Lastly, two waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Supreme Court in both Thomas v. Iancu and Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received five new petitions this week: (1) Thomas v. Iancu, (2) United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al., (3) Louis A. Piccone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, (4) Richard Polidi v. Michelle K. Lee, et al., and (5) Michael A. Henry-Bey v. Hector Castro, et al.
• Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC.
• Finally, the Court denied petitions in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc. and Ford Motor Co. v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; one precedential opinion in a veterans case; two nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases; and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a trademark case, and one precedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, two nonprecedential opinions in Merit System Protection Board cases, and one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.