FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case, affirming the Court of International Trade’s decision to sustain a Department of Commerce antidumping order. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion to dismiss an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, vacating the Veterans Court’s decision and remanding the case. Notably, Judge Bryson wrote a dissent disagreeing with the majority’s analysis of causation. The second opinion comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, reversing the Board’s decision. Notably, in the second case, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court sua sponte granted en banc consideration in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In another pending en banc veterans case, the veteran filed his en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in October. The court also received a new petition raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin and reverses a contempt finding based on an alleged violation of protective order. Notably, in the second case, Judge Reyna filed a dissent. The Federal Circuit also released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc consideration to a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade and three nonprecedential orders denying petitions for a writ of mandamus, denying a petition for a writ of control, and granting a motion for a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders. One summarily affirms; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and two grant joint motions to voluntarily dismiss. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the summary affirmance, 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, the Court set a date for oral argument in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case raising questions about equitable tolling of a veterans benefits filing deadline. With respect to petition cases, two new petitions were filed in patent cases; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a veterans case; three amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a federal employment case. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post examining “whether, when it comes to questions about patent venue, the Federal Circuit is really in the pocket of big tech”;
• another blog post highlighting how, “[i]n a far cry from usual textualism,” the Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision in a veterans case; and
• an article discussing an en banc petition that argues that “a recent split Federal Circuit panel decision gives the Patent Trial and Appeal Board the improper authority to overturn circuit court decisions.”

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 issued its opinion in George v. McDonough. With respect to petition cases, four new petitions were filed with the Court; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a veterans case brought by a pro se petitioner; three amicus brief were filed in another veterans case raising a question about the standard of proof for disability claims; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Notably, in the patent case the petitioner presented the same two questions presented to the Court in American Axle & Mfg, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. Here are the details.

The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in George v. McDonough. In a six to three decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling, finding that “[t]he invalidation of a VA regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on clear and unmistakable error.” Justice Barrett authored the Court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Breyer and in part by Justice Sotomayor. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.