Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post suggesting reasons for the ”the prevalence of filing errors and subsequent correction requirements in Federal Circuit appeals–even among the nation’s most sophisticated appellate practitioners”;
- a report covering how Chief Judge Moore “told the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday that Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal of her effective removal from the [Federal Circuit] should fail because her claims do not meet the ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranted for transfer to another circuit and her constitutional challenges are precluded”;
- an article asking whether the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will “chip away at Federal Circuit Rule 36 summary affirmances” or even “offer a path for [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appellants to circumvent Rule 36 altogether”; and
- a piece highlighting how the Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday to “review whether the government need only pay six years of unpaid combat-related special compensation if a veteran files a claim.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO suggesting reasons for the ”the prevalence of filing errors and subsequent correction requirements in Federal Circuit appeals–even among the nation’s most sophisticated appellate practitioners.” Crouch indicated he believes the Federal Circuit “rejects filings as non-compliant much much more often than any other Circuit Court of Appeal” and that “a substantial part of the difficulty may well lie with the clerk’s office’s approach rather than with the practitioners.”
Eileen McDermott filed a report for IP Watchdog covering how Chief Judge Moore “told the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday that Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal of her effective removal from the [Federal Circuit] should fail because her claims do not meet the ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranted for transfer to another circuit and her constitutional challenges are precluded.” McDermott went on to say “[t]he only way for the suspension to be lifted is for Newman to submit to the Committee’s preferred medical testing and for those tests to confirm what her own medical professionals have concluded, i.e., that she possesses superior cognitive ability for a woman her age, with no signs of mental deterioration.”
Deborah Pollack-Milgate penned an article for the National Law Review asking whether the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will “chip away at Federal Circuit Rule 36 summary affirmances” or even “offer a path for [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appellants to circumvent Rule 36 altogether.” Pollack-Milgate discussed how “the Federal Circuit issued Rule 36 summary affirmances in 43 percent of PTAB appeals between 2011 and 2024.”
Ufonobong Umanah composed a piece for Bloomberg Law discussing how the Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday to “review whether the government need only pay six years of unpaid combat-related special compensation if a veteran files a claim.” Umanah discussed how a “veteran can apply for retroactive combat-related compensation, but the . . . Federal Circuit said the Barring Act—31 U.S.C. §3702—imposes a six-year statute of limitations.” Umanah noted how “[t]he Supreme Court will decide whether the statute authorizing that compensation has a settlement mechanism that displaces the Barring Act.” This morning we also reported on this development.