FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other came in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, which had dismissed a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Today the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions in employment, veterans, and patent cases. The court also released seven orders. Five granted summary affirmances and two dismissed all of one case and part of another. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in George v. McDonough, a case that raises an important question regarding review for clear and unmistakable error in the denial of a veteran’s claim for disability benefits: “When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of ‘clear and unmistakable error’ that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?” This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case, a nonprecedential order remanding cases to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and five nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; two motions to dismiss appeals; two summary affirmances; and an erratum. Here is text from the opinion and orders and links to the summary affirmances and erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order dismissing a case for failure to file a required motion and two summary affirmances. Here is the text of the order and a list of the summary affirmances.

Last month, the court heard oral argument in LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. Judges Chen, Schall, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Last month, the court heard oral argument in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., in which Cisco appeals a finding that it infringed four patents held by Centripetal Networks, resulting in a judgement of over $2.75 billion. An amicus brief was filed by High Tech Inventors Alliance in support of Cisco. Before oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued an order limiting the scope of the oral argument to “the question whether the judgment should be vacated because the district court judge was required to recuse himself from the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455.” Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 10 panels to consider about 48 cases. Notably, none of this week’s cases attracted amicus briefs. Of the 48 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 35. Here is a list of this week’s cases.