FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case over a dissent from Judge Dyk, and also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a “Rails-to-Trails” takings case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would have directed the Northern District of California to vacate an order denying a motion to dismiss based on the first-to-file doctrine. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in the following cases: (1) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. v. United States, (2) Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp., and (3) Gadsden Industrial Park, LLC v. United States.

Here are the details.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Government’s E-Passport Patent Win – The United States’s e-passport technology was found to have not infringed Iris Corporation Berhad’s patent in a ruling issued by the Federal Circuit
• Federal Circuit Judge ‘Baffled’ By Mylan Position In PTAB Appeal – Judge Moore expressed her confusion at the prospect of Mylan’s attorney not requesting mandamus relief during oral arguments on Friday.
• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Finding that Fax/Scanner Patent Claims Are Indefinite – In Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s finding of indefiniteness for Infinity’s fax/scanner patent.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in an international trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• What’s Eligible for a Patent? The Section 101 Muddle Explained – Perry Cooper describes the uncertainty and confusion surrounding patent eligibility under Section 101 and highlights the Supreme Court’s upcoming opportunities to provide clarity after Alice.
• Fed. Circ. Agrees Fax Machine Patents Are Indefinite – The Federal Circuit found that two terms in the patent claim language failed to provide reasonable certainty of the terms’ scope and thus the patents were deemed invalid for indefiniteness.
• Afghan’s Land Takings Claim Against U.S. Army Rejected on Appeal – The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a suit after an Afghan citizen failed to prove ownership of a property that he claimed the U.S. Army unjustly took from him when the U.S. Army constructed Combat Outpost Millet in 2010.

Here’s the latest.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle America, Inc. v. United States.
• Two new amicus briefs were filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, the first by a group of patent practitioners in Chicago and the second by the New York Bar Association.
• One new waiver of right to respond was filed by Illumina in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and another case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential errata. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the errata.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.