FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Connecticut, while the second precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions affirm orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order comes in a patent case involving a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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

• a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
• an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a contract case and reverses and remands a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion comes in a tax case “involv[ing] the procedural mechanisms for filing a tax refund for penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The nonprecedential opinion affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and dismisses-in-part a case addressing allegedl federal trade dress infringement and federal trademark liability for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first transfers a case to the District of Nevada unless, within 30 days from the date of entry of the order, a party files a notice with the court that she has made a filing in the district court case affirmatively dismissing any claims overlapping with this matter. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. The other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. One of the nonprecedential orders comes in a patent case and denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order denying transfer and to transfer the action. Two of the nonprecedential orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order, as well as links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a government contract case. Here is the link to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioners’ reply brief was filed in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case concerning the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a veterans case, and new waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case and in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a case that attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a takings claim by owners of residential rental properties. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the owners did state a claim for a physical taking, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion comes in a government contract case, while the second comes in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the second comes in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Two of the nonprecedential orders grant motions to transfer, a third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the fourth is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and all of the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.