This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: two in veterans cases both dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. Notably, however, this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel rather than via telephone conference calls as in past months. In total, the court will convene 16 panels to consider about 61 cases. Of these 61 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.
This week we are previewing two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Lynch v. McDonough. In this case, Lynch asks the Federal Circuit to overrule its decision in Ortiz v. Principi, a case that sets forth the burden of proof by which veterans must prove their claims. This is our argument preview.
- Patent Appeal Lessons From Fed. Circ. Remote En Banc Args – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has sat remotely en banc for only two cases in the past year, both of which have been veterans cases, but their oral arguments can provide insight to all practitioners.
- Novartis Patent on MS Drug Gilenya Evades Supreme Court Scrutiny – The Supreme Court will not explore the debate over whether being in regular competition is enough to challenge a PTAB ruling on a rival’s patent without having been sued for infringement.
- Fourth Circuit Finds ‘Pretzel Crisps’ Plaintiffs are Not Bound to Federal Circuit Across Appeals from Distinct TTAB Decisions – The Fourth Circuit joins the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in considering the reach of the Lanham Act’s permission to seek review of a TTAB decision at either the CAFC or in federal district court.
Here’s the latest.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case addressing patent eligibility and a precedential opinion in a veterans case involving a denial of duplicative educational benefits. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to reverse a transfer order by the Western District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.
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 two dispositions, one new case with an amicus brief, one case with new briefing, one case update, three recent oral arguments, and two upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and another patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Euzebio v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Judge Wallach authored a unanimous panel opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that certain materials were not constructively before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. This is our opinion summary.