FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se patent case. In it, the court addressed whether the lack of compliance with a court order was appropriately handled by the district court when it sanctioned the appellant. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court decided a veterans case law week, addressing the question of whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case that the court reviewed en banc. As explained in Judge Taranto’s opinion, a “majority of the court (as reflected in this opinion and the concurrence) agree[d], and the court [held], that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at issue, the required effective date of such benefits is the date that the veteran would have had in the absence of the challenged government conduct—imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. One other thing to note: Judge Wallach participated in the court’s en banc consideration of the case, despite being a senior judge, because he was on the original panel, and as a result this case was decided by a thirteen-judge panel. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is the link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”). In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting five important Federal Circuit rulings so far in 2023;
• a blog post contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations”; and
• an article for discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in a patent case addressing obviousness.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.