FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

As we previously reported, last week the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. After deciding that NOVA had standing and the court had jurisdiction over the case, the court held that a Federal Circuit rule setting a filing deadline for certain petitions was inconsistent with a federal statute and therefore invalid. Notably, to reach these conclusions, the court not only invalidated one of its rules but also overruled three of its cases. Here is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and a Rule 36 judgment in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument was scheduled in the veterans case pending before the en banc court. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and eligible subject matter; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and three amicus briefs filed in support of a petitioner in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal of a denial of benefits in a veterans case decided by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

• Fed. Circ. Again Says No State Sovereign Immunity In IPRs – In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine, the Federal Circuit held that plaintiffs can request inter partes reviews of state universities’ patents and sovereign immunity does not apply.
• Federal Circuit Tries to Wrap Its Arms Around Functional Biotech Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last Wednesday and focused on the application of the enablement requirement to Amgen’s patent covering therapeutic antibodies.
• Del. Chief Urges Creativity When Litigating Patent Eligibility – Chief Judge Leonard Stark addressed the resolution of patent eligibility issues within litigation during a panel discussion on Friday.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions in three veterans cases and two patent cases. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the court considered the enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.