FedCircuitBlog

The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in George v. McDonough. In a six to three decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling, finding that “[t]he invalidation of a VA regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on clear and unmistakable error.” Justice Barrett authored the Court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Breyer and in part by Justice Sotomayor. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Memmer v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In particular, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned [its right to use the property in question] if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to transfers of cases and the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received a response to a petition raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Thaler v. Vidal, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue in the case. On appeal, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an “inventor” under the Patent Act. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments. Notably, the revised protocols include expanded testing documentation options available to counsel and attendees. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision that “an Italian company can’t register a ‘Parma Coffee’ trademark because it primarily refers to a product’s point of origin”;
• another article addressing how Apple called the Solicitor General’s brief a “‘regrettable disregard’ of high court precedent” in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.; and
• a third article explaining how the Federal Circuit decided a “Delaware federal judge misconstrued part of UMass’ skin-cream patents when it found them invalid last year.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four 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; the third comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and the fourth comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.