Here’s the latest.

Full Federal Circuit Will Consider Court Review of VA Rules

Reported by Perry Cooper on

The Federal Circuit will soon consider, en banc, whether it lacks jurisdiction to review interpretive rules in the VA’s internally binding administrative staff manual. The Federal Circuit had previously held that courts did not have the power to review interpretations of the VA’s administrative staff manual. Perry Cooper reports that the Federal Circuit will reconsider this issue because

[t]he National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates Inc. asked the full Federal Circuit to hear its appeal challenging two of the VA’s rules for adjudicating individual benefits claims.

The case is Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

CAFC Issues Another Precedential Decision on Standing

Reported by Grace E. Kim on

In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed standing requirements regarding IPRs. A party seeking to appeal a final IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must show that it has standing to do so. In Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the Federal Circuit found that Argentum lacked standing because it had not provided sufficient evidence of a reasonable and imminent threat of litigation. Grace Kim states that

“[t]his case shows that even if standing may be established by the appellants from a final written decision from PTAB when filing the Notice of Appeal, the Federal Circuit may still dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing if the sole remaining appellant is unable to demonstrate an injury in fact.”

Federal Circuit Sinks Another Attempt to Use PTO Guidance

Reported by Colin J. Stalter on

In the case of In re: Rudy, Colin Stalter reports that the Federal Circuit did more than simply hold that a method of selecting a fishing hook was invalid for being directed to an abstract idea. The court took the opportunity to highlight the non-binding nature of PTO guidance:

[W]e apply our law and the relevant Supreme Court precedent, not the Office Guidance, when analyzing subject matter eligibility. . . . To the extent the Office Guidance contradicts or does not fully accord with our caselaw, it is our caselaw, and the Supreme Court precedent it is based upon, that must control.