FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and four Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s determination that a party lacks standing as a matter of collateral estoppel and concludes that the same party has standing in a companion case. Notably, Jude Lourie expressed additional views on the matter. The second opinion comes in another patent case, this one appealed from the Northern District of California. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it reverses the district court’s determination that a party does not have standing and remands the case. This morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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 pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in another pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a case concerning judicial disqualification; three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a veterans case and another in a pro se case. 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. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case raising a question concerning patent eligibility; and three amicus briefs were filed in support of a petition raising a question related to judicial disqualification. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s invalidation of patent claims based on subject matter eligibility; notably, Judge Stoll dissented in part. The second comes in another patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s finding of invalidity based on indefiniteness; notably, Judge Dyk dissented. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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 granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions: 

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, an en banc veterans benefits case. In it, VA appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that Rudisill qualified for Post-9/11 benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills. The en banc court agreed to consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument recap.