FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee”;
• a blog post about a Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit suggesting the Federal Circuit should go en banc more often to clarify patent eligibility law; and
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion granting-in-part a petition to review the interpretations by the Department of Veterans Affairs of two diagnostic codes used to award disability benefits. Notably, Judge Prost dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Guest Post by Blair E. Thompson

In 2020, the Federal Circuit addressed important questions regarding “pro-claimant” policies and rules governing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court also approved VA’s interpretation of its regulation regarding discharges due to “willful and persistent misconduct” and paved the way for challenges to VA’s internal adjudication policies and procedures manual.

As we previously reported, last week the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. After deciding that NOVA had standing and the court had jurisdiction over the case, the court held that a Federal Circuit rule setting a filing deadline for certain petitions was inconsistent with a federal statute and therefore invalid. Notably, to reach these conclusions, the court not only invalidated one of its rules but also overruled three of its cases. Here is our summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a prededential en banc opinion in a veterans case, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, concluding that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the case and that a Federal Circuit rule is invalid given the applicable statute of limitations. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. It has been a quiet week. In pending en banc cases, this week’s update is a citation to supplemental authority in a veterans case along with the government’s response. In cases with pending petitions for en banc rehearing, this week’s update is a correction to a precedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An amended petition was filed in a veterans case recently argued before the en banc court. As for pending en banc petitions in patent cases, highlights include new responses to petitions raising questions related to claim preclusion and sanctions; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising a question related to obviousness; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to remedies, issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review, and alleged due process and takings violations in inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In one of the two pending en banc veterans cases, the Court invited the National Organization of Veterans Advocates to file an amended petition. In the other case, two amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases, highlights include a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising questions related to prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, and reasonable royalties; and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to patent marking, expert testimony, willful infringement, and inventorship. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court heard oral argument in a veterans case last week. As for petitions for en banc consideration in patent cases, a new petition was filed in a case raising questions related to literal infringement and claim construction; the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to sanctions; and the court denied two petitions, one in a pro se case and one raising a question related to non-obviousness. Here are the details.

• SCOTUS Denial of TCL v. Ericsson Petition Means Juries Decide Damages for SEP Infringement – The Supreme Court declined to review a Federal Circuit decision requiring jury trials for the determination of damages for past infringing activities.
• Full Federal Circuit Grapples With Right to Review VA Manual – The Federal Circuit’s first telephonic oral argument for an en banc rehearing of a case was held last Thursday.

Here’s the latest.