FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans benefits case appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”

Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”

SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.

Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion vacating a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction, a precedential opinion in a trade case, and a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board.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. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update four new pro se petitions were filed and the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in another pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, both affirming lower court decisions finding a lack of jurisdiction, one by the Court of Federal Claims and one by the Court of International Trade. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions, one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, three in patent cases appealed from district courts, and one in a veteran case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This past Thursday, the court heard oral argument in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We have been following the case because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen heard Thursday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. In short, it was another light week at the court, with the court denying two petitions in related pro se cases. Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one addressing pleading requirements in a patent infringement case and the other reversing a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade over a dissent by Judge Reyna. Additionally, the court issued four nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases and two cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. 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. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

On Tiffany Cunningham’s Appointment to the CAFC: An Impeccable Candidate and a Rallying Call for More Diversity in IP – In a post on IPWatchDog, Emer Simic writes about Tiffany Cunningham, whose “confirmation [is] now imminent” and has “reached [a] historic milestone.”

Federal Circuit Resumes In-Person Argument With $1.2 Billion Cancer Drug Case – Scott Graham commented on the oral argument in Juno Therapeutics Inc v. Kite Pharma Inc., in which Chief Judge Moore “pressed [attorneys] repeatedly on whether . . .  [a] patent on a groundbreaking approach to cancer treatment . . . [is] sufficiently described.”

FBI Agent Who Fought VA for GI Bill College Benefits Wins Appeal; Case Could Help Vets Nationwide – In the Chicago Sun Times, Stephanie Zimmermann discusses Rudisill v. McDonough, where Jim Rudisill’s “successful legal battle could result in additional benefits for other long-serving veterans.”

Pentagon Cancels JEDI Cloud Contract After Years of Contentious Litigation – Jared Serbu, deputy editor of FederalNewsNetwork.com, reports that the “bitterly contentious saga over what was once envisioned [as] the largest information technology procurements . . . finally came to an end . . . as Defense officials said they would no longer pursue the [Joint Enterprise Defense infrastructure] JEDI Cloud contract.”