FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and two Rule 36 Judgments. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Florida. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another patent case appealed from from the Southern District of New York, one addresses a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes from a case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and the Rule 36 judgments.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board and one Rule 36 judgment. This morning, the court released three precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and two Rule 36 judgments. Two of the precedential opinions came in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The third addressed a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Notably, while Judge Reyna concurred in the panel’s decision to affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, he wrote separately to express his view that the governing law represented an “unjust principle.” The two nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, six nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of West Virginia. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case involving patent issues appealed from the Northern District of California, one comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, two come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one comes in a case decided by the Merit System Protection Board, and, finally, one comes in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. In this case, a majority of the panel found all relevant claims unpatentable. Notably, Judge Taranto concurred in part and dissented in part, taking the position that the panel should not have reversed the PTAB’s judgment on certain patent claims. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential order comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order as well as links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss Nagy’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the opinion’s introduction.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released four nonprecedential opinions, an additional nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Of the opinions, one dismisses an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction, one affirms a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one affirms a finding that a patent case appealed from a district court was an exceptional case for purposes of an award of attorney fees, and one affirms a dismissal of a case by the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a taking case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office, and four nonprecedential orders. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, two transfer cases, and one dismisses a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, five nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, one comes in a trade case and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, two come in patent cases appealed from district courts, and one comes in a veterans case. Notably, one of the patent cases includes an opinion by Judge Cunningham concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and two additional nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case, while the other comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving a claim for damages under a treaty with the Ute Indians. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.