FedCircuitBlog

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. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in two pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and in two veterans cases; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases. 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, the Supreme Court issued its opinion yesterday in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, one in a trade case, one in an employment case, and three in pro se cases. Three briefs in opposition were filed, two in veterans cases and one in a patent case. Two waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case. And, finally, four petitions were denied, three in patent cases and in one 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, no new petitions were filed with the Court, but the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; the Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition in two patent cases and another brief in opposition was filed by a private party in one of the same cases; two amicus brief were filed in another patent case, four amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case, and one amicus brief was filed in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a patent 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, on Monday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and veterans case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; and the Court denied a petition in a government contract case. Here are the details. 

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between the education benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and in particular whether veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service are entitled to 48 months of benefits. The court issued a majority opinion reversing the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which had held that veterans are entitled to 48 months of benefits when they have multiple periods of qualifying service. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges, however, issued dissenting opinions agreeing with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is our summary of the court’s opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in a veterans case addressing the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. As for petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement and received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the court’s majority opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a statute limiting educational assistance applies to veterans with multiple periods of service. Notably, both Judge Newman and Judge Reyna filed separate dissenting opinions. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions today. One comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and three come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals, and one grants motions to sever claims and transfer remaining claims to the District of Colorado. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order granting the motions, and links to the dismissals.

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.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider 45 cases. Of these 45 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. Of these argued cases, one case—an en banc case—attracted any amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In particular, the court will 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 preview.