FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order in a veterans case denying a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, and four other judges joined his opinion. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions, the first in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second in a patent case addressing patent eligibility appealed from the District of Massachusetts; and the third in another patent case involving the same patent and appealed from the Northern District of California. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here is text from the order, the introductions to the opinions, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released an opinion in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Texas. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s claim construction as to one term, vacates its construction as to another term, and remands the case. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied nine petitions. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates the Board’s affirmance of an examiner’s final rejection of claims. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Affairs. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Federal Circuit also released six nonprecedential opinions. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to transfer a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California; one grants a petition for a writ of mandamus to undo an order by the Eastern District of Texas transferring two cases to the Central District of California; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment in an interference proceeding. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, both patent cases involve the same parties. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, fourteen amicus brief were filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case concerning the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a pro se case. Here are the details. 

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the links to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between the education benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in particular whether veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service are entitled to 48 months of benefits. The court issued a majority opinion reversing the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which had held that veterans are entitled to 48 months of benefits when they have multiple periods of qualifying service. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges, however, issued dissenting opinions agreeing with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our summary of the court’s opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a veteran’s challenge to the reduction of his disability rating. Notably, Chief Judge Moore dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Finally, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The first transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; the second transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and the third dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in a veterans case addressing the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As for petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement and received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.