FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders and an errata. Two of the orders transfer appeals, while the third dismisses an appeal. Here are links to the orders and the errata.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a government contract case; a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a takings case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in the same takings case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and five nonprecedential opinions. In the precedential opinion, the court reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on an incorrect interpretation of the patent statute in the context of determining what qualifies as prior art for use in an inter partes review proceeding. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a vaccine case, one in an international trade case, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two in patent cases appealed from district courts. Notably, Judge Stark filed additional views in the international trade case, indicating potential disagreement with the court’s law governing differential pricing analyses, while Judge Prost filed a concurring opinion in the nonprecedential opinion reviewing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and an errata. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in a government contract case and the other comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And the lone nonprecedential order transfers a case. Here is are the introductions to the opinions and order as well as a link to the errata. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in trade cases on appeal from the Court of International Trade. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented in both appeals. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, oral argument in Soto v. United States will take place later this month. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond to the petition in that patent case, along with a reply brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. All four nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential orders, one remands a case, one summarily affirms a decision by a lower court, and the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals. 

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and one summary affirmance. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, while the other comes in a pro se case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, two transfer cases, while the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders and summary affirmance. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.