FedCircuitBlog

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 last week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two address issues arising out of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: one addresses the jurisdiction of the lower court and the other addresses an appeal from an order of the lower court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The third opinion addresses an appeal from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order that dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received a new petition for rehearing filed in a patent case concerning a question of proper venue. Here are the details.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from an inter partes review final written decision in a patent case. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinions address appeals related to decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the four orders, one transfers a case and the remaining three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer 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 discussing how a “California software company has warned that a venue dispute it lost at the Federal Circuit . . . has opened the door ‘for improper venue to be rectified by new facts arising any time throughout litigation’”;
• an article about “more than half a dozen amicus briefs” urging the Federal Circuit “to keep the [design patent] law as is in order to avoid major disruptions”; and
• an article about the future of AI, highlighting the Federal Circuit’s holding that “AI did not qualify as a human.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case involving a challenge to a claim construction and addresses the use of extrinsic evidence in consideration of the claim construction. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a petition for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the six orders, one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the remaining five orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 47 cases. Of these 47 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 30. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. In this case, the Court is considering whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion, which sparked a dissent from Judge Dyk, addresses an appeal in a patent case from a district court’s finding that the case was exceptional. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims regarding the effective date of a veteran’s disability compensation. The order grants a motion to withdraw an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.