FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in an international trade case.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This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board.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 The Federal Circuit also issued nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and another case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential errata.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This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case.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.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases. Additionally, the court issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Christy, Inc. v. United States, and in Wynkoop v. Department of Defense.
• One new brief in response to the petition was filed with the Court by Apple in Iancu v. Fall Line Patents, LLC.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC by the Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, a second in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a third in a case dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred by invalidating a claim for anticipation when the relevant petition asserted only obviousness. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case affirming PTAB findings of obviousness. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.