FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an international trade case, three nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the Rule 36 summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans benefits case appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”

Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”

SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.

Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion vacating a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction, a precedential opinion in a trade case, and a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, both affirming lower court decisions finding a lack of jurisdiction, one by the Court of Federal Claims and one by the Court of International Trade. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions, one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, three in patent cases appealed from district courts, and one in a veteran case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.

On Tiffany Cunningham’s Appointment to the CAFC: An Impeccable Candidate and a Rallying Call for More Diversity in IP – In a post on IPWatchDog, Emer Simic writes about Tiffany Cunningham, whose “confirmation [is] now imminent” and has “reached [a] historic milestone.”

Federal Circuit Resumes In-Person Argument With $1.2 Billion Cancer Drug Case – Scott Graham commented on the oral argument in Juno Therapeutics Inc v. Kite Pharma Inc., in which Chief Judge Moore “pressed [attorneys] repeatedly on whether . . .  [a] patent on a groundbreaking approach to cancer treatment . . . [is] sufficiently described.”

FBI Agent Who Fought VA for GI Bill College Benefits Wins Appeal; Case Could Help Vets Nationwide – In the Chicago Sun Times, Stephanie Zimmermann discusses Rudisill v. McDonough, where Jim Rudisill’s “successful legal battle could result in additional benefits for other long-serving veterans.”

Pentagon Cancels JEDI Cloud Contract After Years of Contentious Litigation – Jared Serbu, deputy editor of FederalNewsNetwork.com, reports that the “bitterly contentious saga over what was once envisioned [as] the largest information technology procurements . . . finally came to an end . . . as Defense officials said they would no longer pursue the [Joint Enterprise Defense infrastructure] JEDI Cloud contract.”

This past Tuesday the court heard oral argument in Larson v. McDonough, an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes heard Tuesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week the Supreme Court completed its October 2020 term, with all cases from the term decided. As for the Court’s October 2021 term, currently the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. That said, many petitions are still pending. And, you may recall, the Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility. We are still waiting for the government’s brief in that case. And since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, two respondents submitted waivers of right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case, and a petitioner filed a reply brief in a vaccine case. Here are the details.