FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 45 cases. Of these 45 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. Of these argued cases, one case—an en banc case—attracted any amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

This morning Chief Judge Moore announced the appointment of four new members to the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council. Appointees include Eldora Ellison, Michelle Klancnik, Roman Martinez, and Sonal Mehta. The three-year term appointments are effective beginning tomorrow. Here is the full text from the announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a writ of mandamus to dismiss or transfer an appeal from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the text from the order 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:

• a blog post about Judge Albright granting a motion to transfer venue while determining “the Federal Circuit had reached conclusions different from the Fifth Circuit on what Fifth Circuit law was”;
• another blog post about a Supreme Court petition that “seek[s] clarification of the collateral estoppel doctrine” applied by the Federal Circuit to patent infringement litigation after a patent is invalidated in a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article about Formula One settling a patent infringement suit over a mandatory safety feature.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding that the petitioner failed to show that certain claims were anticipated or would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 will hear oral arguments next week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case. Additionally, the views of the Solicitor General were submitted in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement. Here are the details.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arellano v. McDonough, a case raising questions about equitable tolling of a one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran’s discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Although the Supreme Court held in Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs that “the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants should also apply to suits against the United States,” in this case the Federal Circuit held 6-6 that veterans are precluded from pursuing equitable tolling of § 5110(b)(1)’s one-year deadline. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following questions:

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

This is our argument preview. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Court of Federal Claims’s determination on liability, vacates its judgment as to compensation and interest, and remands the case. The second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of eligibility and remands the case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Next week the court will hear oral argument in one of the two pending en banc cases. As for petitions for en banc review, the court received a new petition filed by a pro se party, and the court denied two petitions raising questions related to the critical date of prior art and the written description requirement, respectively. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Skarr v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, after being diagnosed with leukopenia Skarr filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Skarr’s claim, and Skarr appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. That court certified a class including Skarr and similarly situated veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed the class certification to the Federal Circuit, asserting the Veterans Court lacked authority to certify the class. Skarr cross-appealed the Veterans Court’s definition of the class. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judge Newman and Chief Judge Moore, this month the Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s class certification and denied Skarr’s cross-appeal. This is our opinion summary.