FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, an en banc veterans benefits case. In it, VA appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that Rudisill qualified for Post-9/11 benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills. The en banc court agreed to consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument recap.

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

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

• an article about a “multibillion-dollar patent infringement case at the Federal Circuit”;
• another article about the declining number of Delaware patent filings; and
• a blog post about the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issuing sanctions based on abuse of the inter partes review process.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion 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 about the “effect of American Axle on life sciences patents”;
• another article about how attorneys are “watching the upcoming session to assess whether the justices will develop an appetite for patent law”; and
• a blog post about Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case argued earlier this week at the Supreme Court.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals for failure to prosecute; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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 this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Pennsylvania; a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied two petitions, one raising questions related to claim construction and another filed by a pro se party. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Memmer v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Memmer appealed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In the appeal, Memmer challenged the lower court’s decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appealed to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Appellants’ property was taken,” and in the alternative to argue that the takings concluded when the Notice of Interim Trail expired, resulting in a shorter period of time than the lower court found. In an opinion authored by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded-in-part the lower court’s decision. This is our opinion summary.