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 oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in three appeals between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc. involving “a series of Patent Trial and Appeal Board rulings that inventions described in Masimo’s patents were obvious and therefore unpatentable”;
• an article about how LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations holds the potential to make changes to the longstanding test for design patent obviousness; and
• an article analyzing the potential impact of a former soldier’s argument that the “U.S. Supreme Court [should] reverse a Federal Circuit decision that he claimed wrongly reduced his access to increased benefits Congress granted to wartime veterans.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case raising a question related to GI Bill educational assistance. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, one in a patent and one in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five pro se cases. Here are the details.

Monday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” 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. 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.