FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. In an opinon authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Prost and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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

• an article and a blog post providing information on the recently released letter and order regarding the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge; and
• a blog post discussing whether obviousness is a question of law or fact.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases addressing, respectively, claim construction and definiteness. 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. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in an employment case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the public release of a letter and order in the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. The letter seeks “clarification of the Special Committee’s order as to the scope of investigation and the hearing” scheduled for July 13 and requests “that the hearing be open to the public.” The order indicates the July 13 hearing will not be open to the public. It also indicates “the only subject counsel should address in the brief due on July 5 (and at the hearing on July 13) is whether Judge Newman’s refusal to comply with the Committee’s orders seeking (i) neurological and neuropsychological testing, (ii) medical records, and (iii) an interview constitutes misconduct.” Here is the full text of the announcement, with links to the letter and order.

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.