FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court decided a veterans case law week, addressing the question of whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case that the court reviewed en banc. As explained in Judge Taranto’s opinion, a “majority of the court (as reflected in this opinion and the concurrence) agree[d], and the court [held], that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at issue, the required effective date of such benefits is the date that the veteran would have had in the absence of the challenged government conduct—imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. One other thing to note: Judge Wallach participated in the court’s en banc consideration of the case, despite being a senior judge, because he was on the original panel, and as a result this case was decided by a thirteen-judge panel. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, three waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a pro se and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing obviousness. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in pro se veterans cases. Additionally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing co-inventorship. The court also released four nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case and three in pro se cases. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmance and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, the Court requested a response to a petition raising a question concerning patent eligibility; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in a veterans case; and a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising a question concerning inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case concerning obviousness. The court also released eight nonprecedential orders, which included a grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case, a grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, four summary affirmances, and two dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively vacated and remanded a judgment in a government contract case and reversed and affirmed in part in a patent case. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the government contract case. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.