FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. The court also denied a petition filed by a pro se party. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the burden of persuasion in inter partes review proceedings. That’s it. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the government filed its en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in December. The court also invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to the process and standard for determining indefiniteness. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees. The court also invited a response to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

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.

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.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 45 cases. Of these 45 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. Of these argued cases, one case—an en banc case—attracted any amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Next week the court will hear oral argument in one of the two pending en banc cases. As for petitions for en banc review, the court received a new petition filed by a pro se party, and the court denied two petitions raising questions related to the critical date of prior art and the written description requirement, respectively. Here are the details.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In particular, the court will 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 preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details.