FedCircuitBlog

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the government filed its en banc reply brief. The court also received a new petition in a case raising a question related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the appellee, a veteran. The court also received two new petitions raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claims, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the grounds for inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court sua sponte granted en banc consideration in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In another pending en banc veterans case, the veteran filed his en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in October. The court also received a new petition raising questions related to the court’s grant of a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer of a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Last Thursday the Federal Circuit granted en banc review and vacated a prior panel decision in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. According to last week’s order, the en banc 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, and in particular what the correct entitlement period is when considering both bills and multiple qualifying periods of service. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court granted en banc reharing in a veteran’s case, and tomorrow the en banc court will hear oral argument in another veteran’s case. As for patent cases, the court received two new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause and the written description requirement, and the court invited a response to a petition raising questions related to conflicts of interest and due process. Finally, in another patent case the court received a new amicus brief supporting a petition raising a question related to claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and a precedential order. The first precedential comes in a patent case reviewing the grant of a preliminary injunction. The second comes in another patent case addressing a dispute over settlement. Notably, Judge Newman dissented from the majority’s holding. The precedential order comes in a veterans case; the en banc court granted rehearing and called for additional briefing regarding veterans’ statutory entitlement to education benefits. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.