FedCircuitBlog

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.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a new patent case concerning whether the institution process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board comports with due process, an argument recap in a patent case addressing standing, and an opinion in a veterans case relating to class certification. Here are the details.

In June, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy petitioned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a rule that would presume Agent Orange herbicide exposure for veterans who had served during specified periods in Guam or Johnston Island. After VA denied MVA’s petition, MVA petitioned the Federal Circuit to set aside VA’s denial and remand the case for rulemaking. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Newman and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit denied MVA’s petition. This is our opinion summary.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a disposition in a veterans case, a brief filed by the government in a patent case raising a question related to the Appointments Clause, and an upcoming argument in another patent case raising questions related to standing. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in LaBonte v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, LaBonte filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims to challenge a denial by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records of his claim for a retroactive medical retirement. The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed Mr. LaBonte’s claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, reasoning that the Board did not have authority to grant LaBonte the relief he was seeking. In an opinion authored by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Thaler v. Vidal, a patent case we have been watching because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Thaler sought review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and here’s what you need to know. The court will convene just four panels to consider about 19 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted amicus briefs. Of the 19 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 16. Here is a list of this week’s cases.

This month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Thales appealed a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thales sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales” at the International Trade Commission based on a commitment by Philips to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. In a relatively short precedential opinion, a Federal Circuit panel comprised of Chief Judge Moore and Judges Dyk and Chen affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. This is our opinion summary.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight an opinion in a patent case addressing the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the International Trade Commission, a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and two oral argument recaps in a veterans case and a patent case concerning prosecution laches. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Personalized Media Communications appeals a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict. While the district court applied the “equitable doctrine of prosecution latches,” PMC claims the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in ruling that PMC engaged in an “egregious misuse” of the patent system. This is our argument recap.