This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, a precedential order denying panel rehearing and another precedential order in the same case denying en banc rehearing, and four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. (Precedential)
In its petition for rehearing, Capital One focuses largely on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board, 195 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999). Capital One argues that Tuttle is inconsistent with the rationale underlying this court’s decision on the issue of collateral estoppel. In fact, however, Tuttle has little in common with this case and does not affect the court’s analysis of the collateral estoppel issue.
* * *
Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for panel rehearing is denied.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. (Precedential)
Appellants Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and Capital One, National Association filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Appellees Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, Invention Investment Fund I, L.P. and Invention Investment Fund II, LLC. The petition and response were first referred to the panel that heard the appeal. The panel denied the petition for panel rehearing in a separate order. The petition and response were also referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.
Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.
DeFlanders v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Darren DeFlanders filed a petition for extraordinary relief with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), principally challenging the length of time the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was taking to rule on his claims for disability benefits. The Veterans Court treated the petition as a request for mandamus relief and denied the petition. Finding no abuse of discretion under the demanding standards for mandamus relief, we affirm the denial. Mr. DeFlanders raises several additional claims in his appeal to this court, but we lack jurisdiction over those claims, which we therefore dismiss.