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.
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight one disposition in a veterans law case, two oral argument recaps in a patent case and a veterans law case, four new patent cases, a patent case with new briefing, and four upcoming oral arguments in related Tucker Act cases. Here are the details.
Recent Federal Circuit Developments in Patent Licensing – On PharmExec.com, Johnathan Harris, Heather Brady, and Drew Hiller have written an article concerning the Federal Circuit and “recent legal developments [that] can help companies avoid infringement.”
Federal Circuit: ‘Patentees Need Not Prove Their Case at the Pleading Stage’ – In her article on LawStreetMedia.com, Christina Tobacco wrote about an opinion recently issued by the Federal Circuit where the court “considered the stringency of pleading requirements in patent infringement cases.”
SCOTUS Decides Arthrex: Much Ado about Inter Partes Reviews – Aziz Burgy posted an article on BloombergLaw.com about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arthrex.
Court Ruling May Let Veterans Access Both Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits – Patricia Kime reported on Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough and how it “could require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay veterans an additional year of education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.”
Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.
On Tiffany Cunningham’s Appointment to the CAFC: An Impeccable Candidate and a Rallying Call for More Diversity in IP – In a post on IPWatchDog, Emer Simic writes about Tiffany Cunningham, whose “confirmation [is] now imminent” and has “reached [a] historic milestone.”
Federal Circuit Resumes In-Person Argument With $1.2 Billion Cancer Drug Case – Scott Graham commented on the oral argument in Juno Therapeutics Inc v. Kite Pharma Inc., in which Chief Judge Moore “pressed [attorneys] repeatedly on whether . . . [a] patent on a groundbreaking approach to cancer treatment . . . [is] sufficiently described.”
FBI Agent Who Fought VA for GI Bill College Benefits Wins Appeal; Case Could Help Vets Nationwide – In the Chicago Sun Times, Stephanie Zimmermann discusses Rudisill v. McDonough, where Jim Rudisill’s “successful legal battle could result in additional benefits for other long-serving veterans.”
Pentagon Cancels JEDI Cloud Contract After Years of Contentious Litigation – Jared Serbu, deputy editor of FederalNewsNetwork.com, reports that the “bitterly contentious saga over what was once envisioned [as] the largest information technology procurements . . . finally came to an end . . . as Defense officials said they would no longer pursue the [Joint Enterprise Defense infrastructure] JEDI Cloud contract.”
Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.