FedCircuitBlog

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 an opinion in a takings case, two patent cases with new briefing, one patent case in which one of three appellants voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and three cases (two takings cases and one government contracts case) with upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article about a supplemental brief filed at the Supreme Court asking the Court to “clarify the proper standard for reviewing questions of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112”;
• another article about a recent ruling by the Federal Circuit that “gives helpful guidance regarding how to defeat early-filed Section 101 patent subject matter eligibility challenges”; and
• a third article about an upcoming Federal Circuit case that will “address some major design patent issues.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. In its opinion addressing patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two patents and reverses the district’s court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two different patents. Notably, Judge Hughes dissented in part. The second opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms a decision that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal.  

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions: 

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that on October 13 it will hold a formal investiture ceremony for the court’s newest judge, the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. While the investiture is an invitation-only event, the court has indicated that audio will be live-streamed via the court’s YouTube channel. Here is the full text of the notice.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising a question related to the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees. The court also invited a response to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, an en banc veterans benefits case. In it, VA appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that Rudisill qualified for Post-9/11 benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills. The en banc court agreed to consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument recap.