FedCircuitBlog

We previously reported that the Federal Circuit proposed to amend several Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and the Practice Notes to three rules, which would take effect on December 1, 2022, if adopted. After receiving public comments, however, the Federal Circuit today announced that it has decided to defer adoption of the proposed amendments until a later date. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. Here are the details.

On Friday the Federal Circuit announced that, in addition to its regular session in  Washington, D.C., it will be sitting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for its November 2022 session. For arguments held at area law schools on November 1 and 2, given space limitations students attending the institutions will be given priority to attend. Arguments scheduled for November 3 in Philadelphia will be open to the general public. Audio recordings of each day’s arguments will be available on the court’s website. Here is the full text of the notice.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions: 

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap. 

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that on October 13 it will hold a formal investiture ceremony for the court’s newest judge, the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. While the investiture is an invitation-only event, the court has indicated that audio will be live-streamed via the court’s YouTube channel. Here is the full text of the notice.

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.

This past Friday, the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments. The court indicated that, in light of recent changes to public health guidance and conditions in the Washington, D.C. area, it will resume normal court operations and reopen the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building to the public, effective today, September 12. The court also issued Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments starting with the October 2022 session. Notably, the court has eliminated any need to test for COVID-19 prior to oral arguments. Moreover, the court will no longer limit the number of people that may attend oral arguments. That said, the court will still require visitors to wear acceptable masks in public areas, regardless of vaccination status. The court indicated it will continue to schedule all oral arguments to be in person, but it will still entertain motions for leave to appear remotely. Here is the full text of the announcement, administrative orders, and a link to the revised protocols for in-person arguments.

The Federal Circuit has scrapped its plan to unseal records in hundreds of cases. Last week, we reported how the Federal Circuit announced its intention to unseal a significant number of sealed paper case records and then send those records to the National Archives and Records Administration. The court directed parties to show cause why those records should not be unsealed and made available to the public. Late yesterday, however, the Federal Circuit announced it has issued a new order rescinding its show cause order. The court explained this reversal as “due to administrative impracticality.” Instead of unsealing these records, the court now indicates, the records “will be transferred in due course to the National Archives and Records Administration for permanent retention in their current state.” Here is the full text of the announcement as well as text from the accompanying, new order.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Public Notice of Show Cause Order to Unseal Certain Paper Case Records. Notably, in the notice the court announced that it intends to unseal a significant number of sealed paper case records so that it may send these records to the National Archives and Records Administration. To do so, the court sua sponte opened a new case and sua sponte issued an order identifying the relevant paper case records–essentially hundreds of cases with records predating the court’s transition to its electronic filing system. The court noted how Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1) indicates that, after five years following the end of all Federal Circuit proceedings, the court may direct parties to show cause why confidential filings should not be unsealed and made available to the public. The court is now making use this procedure. The court indicated that impacted individuals interested in keeping case records sealed must show cause no later than 60 days from August 17, 2022, the date of the order. Here is the full text of the announcement as well as text from the order. The list of cases is included in the order, linked below.

Last week, we reported that the Federal Circuit issued a relatively rare opinion granting panel rehearing in a patent case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare Inc. In the original, now-vacated opinion, a panel comprised of Judges O’Malley and Linn, with Chief Judge Moore dissenting, indicated the court would affirm a district court’s judgment that claims are not invalid for inadequate written description. Notably, however, a different panel ruled on the motion for panel rehearing. In particular, with Judge O’Malley’s retirement from the court, Judge Hughes joined the panel. The new panel, and in particular Chief Judge Moore (no longer dissenting) and Judge Hughes, with Judge Linn now dissenting, granted the petition for panel rehearing, vacated the panel’s prior decision, and, in the new opinion, now reverse the district court’s judgment. Perhaps most importantly, the changed outcome reflects a difference of view regarding application of the written description requirement. Here is an update on the case.