FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that on October 13 it will hold a formal investiture ceremony for the court’s newest judge, the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. While the investiture is an invitation-only event, the court has indicated that audio will be live-streamed via the court’s YouTube channel. Here is the full text of the notice.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees. The court also invited a response to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, an en banc veterans benefits case. In it, VA appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that Rudisill qualified for Post-9/11 benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills. The en banc court agreed to consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument recap.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

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

• an article about a “multibillion-dollar patent infringement case at the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about the declining number of Delaware patent filings; and
• a blog post about the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing sanctions based on abuse of the inter partes review process.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article about the “effect of American Axle on life sciences patents”;
• another article about how attorneys are “watching the upcoming session to assess whether the justices will develop an appetite for patent law”; and
• a blog post about Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case argued earlier this week at the Supreme Court.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals for failure to prosecute; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.