FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board in a pro se case, while the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The first nonprecedential order remands a case vacated by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other two orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first order and links to the dismissals.

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 last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. In a seven to two decision, the Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the case, finding that “[v]eterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits” up to a 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

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 heard arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering 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.” This is our argument recap.

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 heard arguments last week in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case and, yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case. Additionally, a reply brief was filed in a Tucker Act case and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider 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.” This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a reply brief was filed in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and in a pro se case, and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case addressing both joinder in inter partes review proceedings and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Additionally, a brief in opposition was filed in a Tucker Act case and two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in two different cases, one in a trade case presenting questions related to separation of powers and steel tariffs and one in a patent case addressing joint inventorship. Finally, the Court denied petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case, the government filed its merits brief. In addition, the Court set dates for oral arguments in both Rudisill v. McDonough and Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. As for pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case. Additionally, the government waived its right to respond in one veterans case and five pro se 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, an amicus brief was filed in support of petitioner in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in a veterans case, a patent case, and a pro se case. Additionally, two reply briefs were filed in two different cases, one concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and one concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.