Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in a patent case, one filed by a pro se petitioner in a veterans case, and one by another pro se petitioner in an employment case. Additionally, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising questions concerning patent eligibility; a brief in opposition was filed in another patent eligibility case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in a patent case concerning standing; and a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question about the Chevron doctrine’s applicability in veterans cases. Finally, the Court denied three petitions: two in takings cases and one in a patent case. Here are the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases, a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order granting a joint motion to dismiss and two nonprecedential orders granting petitions to withdraw petitions. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Today the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One came in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other came in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, which had dismissed a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.
Today the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions in employment, veterans, and patent cases. The court also released seven orders. Five granted summary affirmances and two dismissed all of one case and part of another. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary affirmances and dismissals.
Late last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in George v. McDonough, a case that raises an important question regarding review for clear and unmistakable error in the denial of a veteran’s claim for disability benefits: “When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of ‘clear and unmistakable error’ that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?” This is our argument recap.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case, a nonprecedential order remanding cases to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and five nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; two motions to dismiss appeals; two summary affirmances; and an erratum. Here is text from the opinion and orders and links to the summary affirmances and erratum.
Last month, the court heard oral argument in LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. Judges Chen, Schall, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.