FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Most notably, this week the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. In other news, a new petition was filed in a pro se case, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, six new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and a pro se petition was denied. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, five new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and two pro se petitions were denied. Here are the details.

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. The Federal Circuit had concluded that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Here is the introduction and conclusion of majority opinion. Next week we plan to post a full opinion summary.

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

• an article analyzing “four Federal Circuit decisions reversing or vacating the underlying rulings” in patent cases and “the lessons learned from those decisions”; and
• a webinar discussing whether the patent eligibility doctrine is “in need of reform.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and the Court denied the petitions in a pro se case and in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, three new replies were filed in separate Merit Systems Protection Board cases all presenting the same question for review, and the Court denied two petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respecct to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinions in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, three new waivers of the right to respond were filed in another patent case, and the Court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to design patent law. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The first precedential opinion comes in an en banc design patent case. In it, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. In the second precedential opinion, a panel vacated and remanded a judgment of Central District Court of California in a patent infringement case over a dissent by Judge Mayer. As for the nonprecedential opinions, the first affirms two separate dismissals by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, the second affirms a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the third dismisses an appeal in a veterans case for lack of jurisdiction, and the fourth affirms another dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other precedential opinion affirms the Western District of Texas’s dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms the dismissal of a petition for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second nonprecedential opinion affirms two final decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a whistleblower case. The first nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal, while the other two nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board, another dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the fourth affirms an anti-filing injunction entered by the District of Delaware in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders summarily affirming under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.