FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals.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.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals for failure to prosecute; and two Rule 36 judgments.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

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Pennsylvania; a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal; and two Rule 36 judgments.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

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.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Also, late yesterday the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying a writ of mandamus to dismiss or transfer an appeal from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented. Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the text from the order and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding that the petitioner failed to show that certain claims were anticipated or would have been obvious at the time the invention was made. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Court of Federal Claims’s determination on liability, vacates its judgment as to compensation and interest, and remands the case. The second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of eligibility and remands the case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Skarr v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, after being diagnosed with leukopenia Skarr filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Skarr’s claim, and Skarr appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. That court certified a class including Skarr and similarly situated veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed the class certification to the Federal Circuit, asserting the Veterans Court lacked authority to certify the class. Skarr cross-appealed the Veterans Court’s definition of the class. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judge Newman and Chief Judge Moore, this month the Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s class certification and denied Skarr’s cross-appeal. This is our opinion summary.