FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing how the “Supreme Court weighed oral arguments” last week “in a case over how a century-old law is applied to decide Department of Veterans Affairs benefits when there is an equal balance of evidence to support or deny a disability claim”;
• an article that provides “an overview of the current state” of obviousness-type double patenting in light of recent Federal Circuit decisions;
• an article reporting how “[t]he deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) updated subject matter eligibility guidance” has passed and how the majority of submissions “overwhelmingly call for more detail in the guidance in order to avoid undue restrictions on patentability of critical artificial intelligence (AI) technologies”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision that addressed the argument that “claim construction is improper at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.”

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first two come in veterans cases. The third comes in federal employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order voluntarily dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion that affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for further proceedings a patent case appealed from the Western District of Missouri. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. The first transfers a case to the District of Nevada unless, within 30 days from the date of entry of the order, a party files a notice with the court that she has made a filing in the district court case affirmatively dismissing any claims overlapping with this matter. The second denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Central District of California. The other two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the first two orders 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 petitioners’ reply brief was filed in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case concerning the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a veterans case, and new waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case and in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and six nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which denied a request for corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. 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. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, new waivers of the right to respond were filed by the government in one takings case and three pro se cases, and one new reply in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising a question regarding the relationship between patent term adjustment and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in dismissing the case as moot and denying Freund’s request for class certification. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk that was joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the case was not moot as to the class claims because it “satisfie[d] the inherently transitory standard” and that the lower court “abused its discretion in finding that the adequacy and commonality requirements for class certifications were not met.” This is our opinion summary

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion reverses a grant of summary judgment in a patent infringement case and remands the case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal of a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the second nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.