FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. Due to the recent spike in COVID cases, all February oral arguments will be held remotely. As it has for some time now, however, the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued next week, the court will convene nine panels to consider about 41 cases. Of these 41 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 31. Of these argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one veterans case being heard en banc and one patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and a precedential order. The first precedential comes in a patent case reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction. The second comes in another patent case addressing a dispute over settlement. Notably, Judge Newman dissented from the majority’s holding. The precedential order comes in a veterans case; the en banc court granted rehearing and called for additional briefing regarding veterans’ statutory entitlement to education benefits. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, since our last update the Court has not granted any new petitions. Two new petitions, however, have since been filed: one in a patent case concerning patent eligibility and one filed by a pro se petitioner. Additionally, Apple filed a reply in support of a petition raising a question related to standing in patent appeals. Finally, two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider 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. In particular, the court will consider several related questions: (1) whether “granting Mr. Taylor’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date under the doctrine of equitable estoppel be contrary to statutory appropriations and thus barred by the Appropriations Clause;” (2) if equitable estoppel does not apply, whether Taylor has a claim for “denial of a constitutional right of access to [Veterans Affairs] processes for securing disability benefits for which he met the eligibility criteria;” and (3) if a right of access exists, whether the right of access was violated here and what the remedy is. This is our argument preview.

As we previously reported, two weeks ago today the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit, George v. McDonough. The petitioner asked the Court to clarify the scope of clear and unmistakeable error with regard to cases involving veterans whose benefits have been wrongly withheld based on an incorrect interpretation of a statute. Notably, this is the only case this term in which the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments in a case decided by the Federal Circuit. Here are more details about the case.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the second opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also issued an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. The Court also requested the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case. No new petitions were filed, but one amicus brief was submitted in support of a petition in a patent case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied four petitions: two in patent cases and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a military discharge case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Court also issued five nonprecedential opinions in various cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a whistleblower retaliation case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll dissented-in-part from the holding in the patent case. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Eastern District of Texas to require transfer of a patent case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims for failure to prosecute, and the second affirms a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prosecute. The court also issued two Rule 36 judgments and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and erratum.