FedCircuitBlog

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In particular, the court will 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 preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of International Trade’s judgment sustaining Commerce’s antidumping order. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent infringement suit from the Western District of Texas to the Southern District of Florida. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about a path to “clarity on patent subject matter eligibility in the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the issue”;
• an article about a challenge at the Supreme Court to a Federal Circuit panel’s decision to grant panel rehearing and issue a new decision reaching an opposite conclusion based solely on the retirement of Judge O’Malley; and
• an article about the Federal Circuit’s recent finding that the “U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs guidance excluding vets with partial knee replacements from evaluation for 100% disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California and addresses the on-sale bar; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a case raising a question concerning judicial disqualification; a brief in opposition was submitted in another veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; the government waived its right to respond in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; and one reply brief was submitted in a patent case raising a question related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Here is the text from the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion granting-in-part a petition to review the interpretations by the Department of Veterans Affairs of two diagnostic codes used to award disability benefits. Notably, Judge Prost dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post about a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a district judge’s decision not to recuse himself despite a family member’s ownership of stock in a party;
• an article about Intel’s appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding “a jury’s $2.1 billion patent verdict against it”; and
• another article about the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision that “AI systems are not eligible to be inventors under US patent statutes.”

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