FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both address pro se appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are their introductions.

As we have been reporting, earlier this month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant Crocs’ motion for summary judgment on a Lanham Act claim. This is our argument recap.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. In a seven to two decision, the Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the case, finding that “[v]eterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits” up to a 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a patent case raising a question at the intersection of infringement and claim construction, along with a denial of a petition in another patent case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. The opinion addresses a pro se petition for review of a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The other opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One was Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article including an interview with Judge Newman as “April 14 marks the one-year anniversary of when the Federal Circuit confirmed an unprecedented investigation into whether U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman was mentally and physically competent to remain on its bench”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he full Federal Circuit declined a request by one of the court’s judges to reexamine how an employee’s prior salary history factors into the analysis of sex-based unequal pay claims.”

In late February, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in W.J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae counsel to present arguments on behalf of the appellant. In an opinion by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims “that equitable tolling was not appropriate and, thus, that Appellants’ petition was not timely filed under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-16(a)(2).” This is our opinion summary.