FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a “rails-to-trials” takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

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

• an article highlighting aspects of the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge;
• an article expressing dissatisfaction with a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning the patentability of claimed ranges where the prior art discloses overlapping ranges; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning what constitutes a dispute from which a government contractor may seek immediate relief.

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

• an article about an “appeal seeking to revive a patent covering [a] Parkinson’s disease drug Neupro”; and
• another article discussing how four law professors argue the “Supreme Court should weigh in on whether artificial intelligence systems can produce patentable inventions.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. In the first two precedential opinions, the court affirmed judgments of the Central District of California and District of Delaware in patent cases. In the third precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the District of Delaware in another patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in still another patent case. In the fifth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.