FedCircuitBlog

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Loomis v. Collins, a pro se veterans case we have been tracking because the court appointed counsel as amicus curiae. In this case, Loomis appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The case presents questions related to educational assistance benefits and the validity of a regulation issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In an opinion authored by Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the panel affirmed the lower court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four opinions: one in a patent case addressing obviousness, one in a case addressing veterans law, and two addressing bilateral tax treaties. We also identify two new patent cases, both raising questions of claim construction. We also highlight one response brief in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to copyright law and inter partes review proceedings; and five new amicus briefs in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to takings under state law and inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article how the Federal Circuit recently “denied [a] bid for a full court review of a panel decision that reinstated a $177 million jury verdict” for patent infringement, “while one dissenting judge said the panel’s holding ‘creates confusion’ over enablement standards for patent method claims”;
• a blog post reporting how Crocs has asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims [a] wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous”; and
• an article highlighting how a “Wisconsin congressman unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at modernizing the law governing misconduct investigations for federal judges and limit indefinite suspensions of jurists which judicial advocates say amount to ‘stealth impeachments.’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. All three opinions come in patent cases: one appealed from the Eastern District of Texas, one from the Northern District of Texas, and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today’s order grants a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with a link to the dismissal.  

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 11 panels to consider 66 cases. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 42. Notably, as we have reported, the Federal Circuit will hold panel hearings both in Chicago as well as Washington DC. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced Raymond C. Clevenger III’s retirement from the Federal Circuit. As today’s announcement notes, Judge Clevenger served on the bench of the Federal Circuit for over 36 years, sitting on approximately 800 panels and authoring more than 1,200 opinions for the Court. While quite less important, personally I will never forget helping him carry a freshly-cut Christmas tree from his car in the basement of the courthouse to his chambers (somehow fitting the tree in the elevator), our lively debate about whether Kansas is a Plain State or part of the Midwest, and his uncanny ability to elicit admissions at oral argument. But, most of all and most importantly, I will remember his kindness and graciousness. On behalf of all the law clerks who ever interacted with him, as well as all the lawyers who ever pleaded a case he handled, we wish him great happiness in his retirement. Here is the full text of the court’s announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is its introduction.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case, four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition, and one nonprecedential order remanding a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinion also comes in a case appealed from the District of Delaware involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the en banc order as well as links to the dismissals and remand.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a case raising a question related to appellate procedure and a pro se case; four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in four pro se cases; two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one reply brief in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one supplemental brief was filed in a pro se case; and one amicus brief was filed in another patent case raising questions related to eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Northern District of Georgia and the other from the Middle District of Florida. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As for the orders, one concerns an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; one addresses a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case being handled by the District of Utah; and one addresses an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The final two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissals.