FedCircuitBlog

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 Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reviews a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed an opposition to the registration of a character mark and design mark. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Both opinions address jurisdictional issues, with one affirming a Merit Systems Protection Board dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and another dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The order grants a motion to withdraw a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the withdrawal and summary affirmances.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Three of the opinions address appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fourth addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The fifth affirms a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

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 Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two address issues arising out of decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: one addresses the jurisdiction of the lower court and the other addresses an appeal from an order of the lower court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The third opinion addresses an appeal from a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order that dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion addresses an appeal from an inter partes review final written decision in a patent case. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The nonprecedential opinions address appeals related to decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the four orders, one transfers a case and the remaining three are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case involving a challenge to a claim construction and addresses the use of extrinsic evidence in consideration of the claim construction. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a petition for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the six orders, one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the remaining five orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissals.