FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a Vaccine Act case and a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions this morning.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In the opinion, a panel composed of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that the Affordable Care Act “provision on reimbursement of cost-sharing reductions is ‘money-mandating’ and that the government is liable for money damages for its failure to make reimbursements for the 2017 reductions.” Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in Tucker Act cases and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contracts case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, NVLSP argues that that the federal government has been overcharging for electronic access to documents filed in court cases. This case was brought to the Federal Circuit as an interlocutory appeal seeking to clarify the correct interpretation of a federal statute, 28 U.S.C § 1913. In the opinion, the panel (including Judge Lourie, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously affirmed a district court’s interpretation of the statute and remanded the case back to the district court for it to resolve the case using the correct interpretation. Here is a summary of the opinion.