FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California and addresses the on-sale bar; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Agency May Deny Patents if Inventors Delay Process, Court Says – Perry Cooper submitted an article on BloombergLaw.com about repercussions of a recent Federal Circuit case addressing prosecution laches, Hyatt v. Hirshfeld. 

How to Get “Boxed-In” and Blow a Judgment You Received: Sleeping in the Bed You Made – Five authors, Amanda Murphy, Brooke Winer, Melissa Santos, Grodan Wright, and Thomas Irving, wrote an article posted on NationalLawReview.com reporting on the holding from a recent Federal Circuit patent case, Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc., where the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to set aside a judgment based on “affirmative misrepresentations” related to alleged prior art.

Recent Case Action Restores Confidence in Federal Whistleblowers – Mathew B. Tully reported on FedSmith.com that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit, Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board, “has favorable implications for federal employee whistleblowers.”

Here is the latest.

• Federal Circuit Affirms Decision to Vacate Judgment Following Evidence of Fraud – Joseph Marinelli at JDSupra.com commented on a recent decision by the Federal Circuit that may have implications in future attempts to vacate a final judgments based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.
• Federal Circuit Revives Trimble Patent Claims in Jurisdiction Ruling – Blake Brittain from Reuters reported about the Federal Circuit’s reversal of a district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• License Agreement Not Enough for Standing on Appeal of an IPR Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. – Alexandra Leigh Lodge and George E. Quillin reported for NationalLawReview.com about how Apple was unable to prove that it had standing to appeal final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Here is the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; two nonprecedential opinions involving the same appellant challenging separate decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case; and a nonprecedential opinion in an employment law case challenging an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions of the opinions.