FedCircuitBlog

Here is an 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 new opinion in a veterans case and four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a veterans case and three patent cases. We also highlight new briefing in two patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a trademark case and veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and seven nonprecedential orders. The opinion affirms a district court’s judgment based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter. One of the orders transfers an appeal from to the Ninth Circuit, one terminates an appeal and transfers the case to the Court of Federal Claims, and one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus. The other four orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions addresses an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The other precedential opinion, which was previously released as a nonprecedential opinion, addresses an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the nonprecedential opinions address appeals in patent cases—one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another from a district court. The third nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, ultimately finding a lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the fourth nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for review. Here is the link to the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. Here are the links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, three transferring cases to other courts and two dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the transfers and one of the dismissals and a link to the other dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, a nonprecedential opinion, a nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed-in-part and denied-in-part a petition for review regarding the Veterans Affairs Adjudication Procedures Manual. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. And in the nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One dismisses an appeal and one grants-in-part a motion for summary disposition of a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion granting-in-part a petition to review the interpretations by the Department of Veterans Affairs of two diagnostic codes used to award disability benefits. Notably, Judge Prost dissented. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

In June, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy petitioned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a rule that would presume Agent Orange herbicide exposure for veterans who had served during specified periods in Guam or Johnston Island. After VA denied MVA’s petition, MVA petitioned the Federal Circuit to set aside VA’s denial and remand the case for rulemaking. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Newman and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit denied MVA’s petition. This is our opinion summary.