This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel rather than via telephone conference calls as in past months. In total, the court will convene 16 panels to consider about 61 cases. Of these 61 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.
Opinions & Orders – April 2, 2021
The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders on its website this morning.
Online Symposium: An Overview of the Federal Circuit’s Most Important 2020 Veterans’ Law Decisions
Guest Post by Blair E. Thompson
In 2020, the Federal Circuit addressed important questions regarding “pro-claimant” policies and rules governing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also approved VA’s interpretation of its regulation regarding discharges due to “willful and persistent misconduct” and paved the way for challenges to VA’s internal adjudication policies and procedures manual.
Opinions & Orders – April 1, 2021
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus related to two district court cases involving contract disputes. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
Online Symposium: A Review of the Most Significant Federal Circuit Decisions in 2020 Related to the Merit Systems Protection Board
Guest Post by James M. Eisenmann
In a series of precedential decisions in 2020 (and early 2021), the Federal Circuit limited the impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act — holding that U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) still may review the reasonableness of imposed penalties and that Veterans Affairs (VA) may not use 38 U.S.C. § 714 to remove employees for conduct or performance that occurred prior to the enactment of the Act. See, Sayers v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 954 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Harrington v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2020); and Brenner v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. 19-2032 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021).
Recent Supreme Court Activity
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
- The Court received a response brief from Hologic in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
- The Court received two new petitions for writ of certiorari in Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board and Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan.
- One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
- Five new amicus briefs were filed with Court.
- Lastly, the Court denied the petition in Simmons v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Here are the details.
Argument Preview – New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc.
The second and final case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc. In this patent case, New Vision appeals two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method reviews. New Vision contends the overall structure of post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges (‘APJs’)” and that such temptation violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It also argues that the PTAB “abdicated its obligation to exercise its discretionary authority in the face of [a] contractual obligation to not bring a PTAB challenge,” and that the APJs were unconstitutionally appointed. It also maintains that the PTAB erred in finding ineligibility. This is our argument preview.
Opinions & Orders – March 31, 2021
The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning on its website.
Online Symposium: The Federal Circuit’s 2020 Rulings Reviewing Decisions of the Court of Federal Claims in Tucker Act Cases
Guest Post by Gregory C. Sisk
In this blog post, I discuss Court of Federal Claims/Tucker Act decisions by the Federal Circuit on (1) the requirement of a money-mandating statute for statutory-based money claims, (2) whether a money-mandating requirement applies as well to claims to recover illegal exactions, (3) the special case of a breach of trust claim under the Indian Tucker Act, and (4) the continued availability of a Tucker Act taking claim even when a claim could alternatively be framed in tort. These 2020 Federal Circuit decisions affirmed the continued stability of Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction through careful application and welcome clarification and extension of established and common-sense Tucker Act doctrines.
Online Symposium: Prof. Lemley’s Top 2020 Federal Circuit Patent Decisions
Guest post by Mark Lemley[1]& Tyler Robbins[2]
This blog post provides a brief summary of four of the most significant patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit last year. It covers cases concerning assignor estoppel, transfer, venue, and the application of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution to administrative patent judges.