FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight three dispositions in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, a patent case appealed from a federal district court, and a tax case appealed from the Court of International Trade. We also highlight a new patent case raising a question related to personal jurisdiction and service of process, along with a copyright case that attracted five new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and three in pro se cases, two appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases appealed from the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court also issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Larson v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. The judges considered whether the court should overrule what Larson characterized as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judge Hughes authored the court’s opinion, which reversed and remanded the case back to the Veterans Court. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing subject matter eligibility. Finally, the court also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the United States Court of International Trade. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions in employment and veteran cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims respectively. Finally, the court also issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions in veterans, government contract, and patent cases. The patent cases address issues of claim construction, damages expert testimony, the written description requirement, and eligibility. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update five new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a government contract case, one in a veterans case, two in takings cases, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two waivers of rights to respond were filed, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and three briefs in opposition to petitions addressing patent eligibility and preclusion were filed. Here are the details.

On August 6 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Buffington v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Chief Judge Moore as well as Judges Lourie and O’Malley. These judges considered whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when he promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge O’Malley dissented. This is our opinion summary.