FedCircuitBlog

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Buffington v. McDonough, a case presenting the question of whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Judges Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a pro se tax dispute decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Over a dissent by Judge Newman, the court affirmed both a dismissal of the case and a denial of a motion for leave to amend the underlying complaint. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will continue to hear oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic, and again this month the court is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the court’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 15 panels to consider 65 cases. Of these 65 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 47, and three cases attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case, one a patent case, and one a case challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

The Federal Circuit issued nine opinions and orders this morning:

• The court issued a precedential opinion in a veterans law case, affirming the upholding of a denial of an earlier effecting date for a service-connected disability over a dissent by Judge Newman.
• The court issued two orders and a precedential opinion in another veterans law case on remand from the Supreme Court. The first order granted panel rehearing, the panel withdrew and replaced its original opinion with a new precedential opinion, and the second order denied rehearing en banc. The new panel opinion declined to apply Auer deference to a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation and affirmed a decision of the Veterans Court, which in turn had affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for a service-connected disability. Judge Reyna dissented. Notably, the order denying rehearing en banc elicited five separate concurring and dissenting opinions.
• The court issued a related nonprecedential order and precedential opinion in a trade case. The order unsealed the opinion, which affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to affirm the Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty order covering carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
• The court issued two nonprecedential opinions affirming the Court of Federal Claims in two government contract appeals involving the same parties.
• The court issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance in case appealed from the Northern District of California.

Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

The third case being considered next week that attracted an amicus brief is Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In this case, Tao presents several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Notably, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao. Moreover, following the amicus brief, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication, and this case is not scheduled for oral argument. Nevertheless, here we summarize the arguments made in the briefs in anticipation of the court’s upcoming decision in this case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case decided by the International Trade Commission, a precedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions of the opinions.

One patent case being argued next week, Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Mobility Workx appeals an adverse decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an inter partes review proceeding. On appeal, Mobility Workx presents several arguments that inter partes violates the Constitution. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit again did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website. That makes four out of the last five business days without released opinions or orders.

Next week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and three cases scheduled to be considered next week attracted amicus briefs. One is Buffington v. McDonough, a veterans case presenting the question of whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs validly exercised rulemaking authority when promulgating a regulation related to the timing of payment of disability benefits. This is our argument preview.

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