FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

• Full Federal Circuit Will Consider Court Review of VA Rules – The Federal Circuit will consider whether it lacks jurisdiction to review interpretive rules in the VA’s administrative staff manual.
• CAFC Issues Another Precedential Decision on Standing – In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed standing requirements regarding IPRs.
• Federal Circuit Sinks Another Attempt to Use PTO Guidance – The Federal Circuit makes clear that it does not apply USPTO guidance when determining subject matter eligibility.

Here’s the latest.

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This morning the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases and two nonprecedential opinions in cases reviewing decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board.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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case.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.