FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing both a petition for an interlocutory appeal and an appeal. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to transfer as moot. Here is text from the orders.

The Federal Circuit announced today that, beginning next month and until the courthouse reopens, the court will offer live audio streaming of all of its oral arguments on the court’s YouTube channel rather than via publicly-accessible telephone conference calls. Here is the text from today’s announcement.

Guest Post by Devin S. Sikes

For the international trade bar, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) remains as important as ever because it so often has the final say on issues arising under U.S. international trade law. In 2020, the Federal Circuit issued thirty opinions in appeals from the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).[1] The Federal Circuit deemed nineteen of those thirty opinions worthy of “precedential” status.[2] To be sure, each of those nineteen precedential opinions addressed important antidumping, countervailing duty, and customs questions. Even the Federal Circuit’s non-precedential opinion in American Institute for International Steel v. United States concerned a significant issue: whether Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), which President Trump invoked more often than any of his predecessors, unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Sunpreme Inc. v. United States stands head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of its importance and potential impact.

I’m excited to announce that this week FedCircuitBlog will host its second online symposium. The symposium will be a Year in Review, reviewing the work of the Federal Circuit in 2020 in various areas of the court’s jurisdiction: appeals involving international trade, patents, money damages claims against the federal government, federal employment law, and veterans’ benefits. We will welcome guest blog posts from leading professors and practitioners in these subject matter areas. Here, however, I first provide a brief overview of the court’s activity this past year–a year markedly different as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but a year in which the court continued its work hearing appeals and deciding cases in the areas of its jurisdiction.

This week we are previewing two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Lynch v. McDonough. In this case, Lynch asks the Federal Circuit to overrule its decision in Ortiz v. Principi, a case that sets forth the burden of proof by which veterans must prove their claims. This is our argument preview.

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

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing patent eligibility and a precedential opinion in a veterans case involving a denial of duplicative educational benefits. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit and the Court of Federal Claims issued a joint order extending limitations on access to the Federal Courts Building through April 30, 2021. The Federal Circuit also issued a notice with additional information related to the order. Here is the text from the court’s notice.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a vaccine case affirming the denial for a petition of compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. The court received a new petition raising questions related to intervening rights, willfulness, and unclean hands, and the court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.