FedCircuitBlog

Here is an 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 one new opinion in a veterans case and four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a veterans case and three patent cases. We also highlight new briefing in two patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a trademark case and veterans case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued it opinion in Frantzis v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Veterans Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Veteran Claims. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential order remands a case vacated by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and links to the dismissals.

Here is an 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 three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Frantzis v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an 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 four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a takings case, a veterans case, and a Little Tucker Act case. Additionally, we highlight two new reply briefs filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 14 panels to consider 64 cases. Of these 64 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 50. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, five cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these five cases.

As we reported yesterday, five cases being argued in March at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Frantzis v. McDonough. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a Board hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. This is our argument preview.