FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two arose from appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments and two more dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the parties filed their en banc briefs in a pending case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference in the context of a regulation adopted by the Office of Personnel Management related to overtime pay. Two amicus briefs were also filed in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit invited a response from appellants in two patent cases and denied three petitions. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also released two Rule 36 judgments and four nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Another denied petitioners the right to appeal in a case decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the remaining two nonprecedential orders released today also dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from the Court of International Trade. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. The first dismisses an appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, while the second transfers a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to the District of Maryland. Here is the introduction to the order dismissing the appeal from the the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and links to the transfer and dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted petitions, there is no new activity. With regard to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed in pro se cases, and a new reply brief was filed in a patent case raising a question regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness. The Court also denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One of the opinions came in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The other opinion came in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article describing how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is going all-in on generative artificial intelligence solutions to help improve its business operations”;
• a piece examining a recent precedential Federal Circuit holding that “inter partes review estoppel does not extend to arguments that the claimed invention is invalid because it was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]housands of disabled veterans could be eligible for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal officials had unfairly capped those payments.”

On June 12, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. 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 and, as a result, “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reversed. According to the Court, “[t]he CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.” This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted petitions, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the last remaining case this term that had been decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed in patent cases. The Court also denied two petitions, one raising a question related to patents and one raising questions relating to government contracts. Here are the details.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.