FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing patentable subject matter, a precedential opinion in another patent case addressing an interference involving first-inventor-to-file patents and first-to-invent applications, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing eligibility for veterans benefits. The court also released a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Additionally, the court released two summary affirmances. Here is text from the nonprecedential order and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing the framework for how the Department of Veterans Affairs performs disability ratings by analogy. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

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 Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in an employment case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the details.

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.