Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 9, 2024

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the third affirms the the Court of Federal Claims’s denial of a petition to review a Special Master’s dismissal of a claim under the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the fourth affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims concerning a veteran’s claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders affirming appeals under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 8, 2024

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission, a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case, and two nonprecedential orders summarily affirming appeals under Rule 36. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 7, 2024

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Merit Systems Protection Board, respectively. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders: two were summary affirmances and one was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit has been busy. This morning it released two precedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case and reverses in part final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion comes in a veterans case and affirms dismissal of veterans’ petitions for writs of mandamus. The nonprecedential orders do various things in various cases: deny a motion for permission to appeal, dismiss a petition for review, grant a motion to remand a trademark case back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, grant a motion to transfer a case, dismiss a petition for review as premature, grant a petition by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and grant a motion for summary affirmance. Late yesterday, the Feddral Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, other than the dismissal, which is only linked.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 29, 2024

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented in part. The court also released two other nonprecedential opinions, one in another case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction and one in an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Read More
Opinions / Panel Activity

Opinion Summary – Beaudette v. McDonough

The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late February in a case that attracted an amicus brief, Beaudette v. McDonough. This is a veterans case in which the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly issued the writ of mandamus because the “Beaudettes had no adequate alternative means to obtain the relief requested” and the Board of Veteran’s Appeals “has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine the types of appeals within its jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.

Read More
Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Recent Supreme Court Activity

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 issued its opinion last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 19, 2024

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions, in a case that attracted an amicus brief, addresses a petition for review from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other opinion addressed an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 18, 2024

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both address pro se appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are their introductions.

Read More
Opinions / Supreme Court Activity

Opinion Summary — Rudisill v. McDonough

Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. In a seven to two decision, the Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the case, finding that “[v]eterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits” up to a 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Read More