FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article summarizing a recent interview with Judge Newman regarding the ongoing investigation into her fitness to serve as a judge;
• a blog post featuring opinions on two recently introduced bills that would reform patent laws with respect to patent eligibility and the procedures for inter partes review and post grant review proceedings;
• an article providing an overview of inter partes review and post grant review petitions and their resolution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit; and
• an article about “broad changes” the Federal Circuit has recently signaled regarding “jurisdictional issues in bid protests and Contract Disputes Act claims.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing the framework for how the Department of Veterans Affairs performs disability ratings by analogy. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review 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.” Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions, one precedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and non-obviousness. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals, one for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and links to the other dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to means-plus-function claims and a denial of a petition presenting a question related to appellate jurisdiction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a post-grant review proceeding and addresses claim construction, written description, enablement, and motions to amend practice and procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of an inter partes review and addresses claim construction and anticipation. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus that would order transfer, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article and a blog post about two newly introduced bills in the Senate that would reform patent laws with respect to patent eligibility and the procedures for inter partes review;
• a blog post providing information and commentary on the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge; and
• an article about an ongoing case involving patents “subject to conflicting rulings on their validity, setting the stage for a race to appeal the decisions at the Federal Circuit.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. In it, the court vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding whether an appellant’s trademark was likely to be confused with three other trademarks the appellee had already registered. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. In an opinon authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Prost and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.