FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case and addresses the prejudicial error analysis conducted by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second opinion comes in an international trade case and addresses a tariff classification. Finally, the court late in the day yesterday released two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

On March 16, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monroe v. United States, an Equal Access to Justice Act case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United States asked the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterized as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in ordering it to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses. Monroe, for his part, maintained he “prevailed at each procedural stage of the litigation” and, as result, “a fully compensatory fee award was warranted.” The National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief in support of Monroe. The Federal Circuit, however, agreed with the government and reversed the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

On March 9, the Federal Circuit issued an order granting petitions for writs of mandamus in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re Hyundai Motor America, patent cases we have been following because they attracted amicus briefs. In the order, the Federal Circuit held that the Western District of Texas committed a clear abuse of discretion “for erroneously interpreting governing law and reaching a patently erroneous result” when that court denied motions to dismiss or transfer. Here is a summary of Federal Circuit’s order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion granting in part and dismissing in part a petition to review a final rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California. Finally, late yesterday the court issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases for failure to prosecute. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms the Board’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an employment retaliation claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential orders. The first denies a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Northern District of California seeking to order the district court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a discovery order in the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order late in the day yesterday granting a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The opinion affirms a finding lack of jurisdiction for an appeal under the Whistleblower Protection Act and Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a combined petition for panel and en banc rehearing. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.