FedCircuitBlog

Last week three argued cases attracted amicus briefs. One was a veterans case, Sellers v. Wilkie. In it, the Federal Circuit considered “[w]hether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.” The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief supporting the claimant. Here is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in cases reviewing decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Federal Circuit Finds Article III Standing – In Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit was asked to determine whether Grit Energy lacked Article III standing to appeal a PTAB decision.
• Interpreting the Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act – James Eisenmann explains how to interpret Sayers v. DVA.
• Uber Gets Win Over Location-Sharing Patent – The Federal Circuit finds it would have been obvious to combine prior art location plotting patents.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued a summary affirmance under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgment.

• A new petition was filed in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
• New responses were filed in (1) Celgene Corp. v. Peter, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, and (3) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC
• New replies were filed in (1) General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. and (2) Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals LLC

Here is the latest on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted the National Organization of Veterans Advocates’s petition for initial hearing en banc in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. NOVA requested its initial hearing to be conducted by the full court to consider two questions related to veterans law. In short, the court agreed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order granting a petition for initial hearing en banc in a veterans case, one precedential order denying a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, one nonprecedential order unsealing a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, the nonprecedential opinion in the patent case, another nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and another nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here is text from the orders and the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in four cases raising questions related to claim construction, persons who may petition for post-issuance review proceedings, and jurisdiction; three new responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of petitions in six cases raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, non-obviousness, and eligibility. Here are the details

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential order granting a request to re-issue a nonprecedential order as a precedential order, the re-issued precedential order denying a motion to vacate and remand in light of Arthrex, and another nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a motion to transfer. Here is the introduction to the opinion and relevant text from the orders.