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.

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.

This morning, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. In this case, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court grant review to reconsider the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility and to determine whether eligibility is a question of law or fact. The Solicitor General previously recommended the Court grant review to reconsider the first question presented, addressing the appropriate standard for determining eligibility. But today the Court denied the petition.

One of Justice Breyer’s last acts as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court might be voting to deny a petition for a writ of certiorari in an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit. The case, American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., tests the precedential value and limits of the test Justice Breyer himself created for patent eligibility ten years go in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Today, the Supreme Court held its last conference of the current term; American Axle was on the list for consideration at today’s conference; and Justice Breyer notified President Biden that his retirement would be effective as of tomorrow at noon eastern.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument. Notably, the revised protocols now allow counsel to bring up to two attendees into the courthouse. Here is the full text of the announcement.

The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in George v. McDonough. In a six to three decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling, finding that “[t]he invalidation of a VA regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on clear and unmistakable error.” Justice Barrett authored the Court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Breyer and in part by Justice Sotomayor. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments. Notably, the revised protocols include expanded testing documentation options available to counsel and attendees. Here is the full text of the announcement.