FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion reverses and remands a judgment if the Court of Federal Claims, finding that the court relied upon a legally erroneous construction of “surgical intervention” in addressing a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. One of the orders transfers an appeal. The other dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits brief was filed in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional or allows for equitable tolling. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in three other Merit Systems Protection Board cases, a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case, and an amicus brief was filed in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and six nonprecedential orders. The first opinion addresses a challenge to a district court’s construction of certain claim terms in a patent case. The second dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two orders transfer appeals (one to a district court and another to an appellate court), one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, two dismiss appeals, and one grants a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions, selected text from the transfer and denial orders, and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the government’s reply brief was filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in another pro se case, and a brief in opposition was filed in response to a petition asking the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in two employment cases, two veterans cases, a patent case, and a pro se case, and the Court also dismissed the petitions in four 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 respondent in Vidal v. Elster. With respect to petitions, two new petitions in two pro se cases were filed with the Court. Additionally, the government waived its right to respond to petitions in an employment case and in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, a nonprecedential opinion, and a nonprecedential order.  The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which held all claims of a patent unpatentable as obvious. The nonprecedential opinion similarly comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and addresses the patentability of claims. Finally, the nonprecedential order dismisses a petition for failure to submit an opening brief. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, an opening merits brief and an amicus brief were submitted in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. Five new petitions were filed, one in a personnel case and four related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed, one in response to a petition raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and two in response to a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. Finally, a reply in support of a petition was filed in a case addressing hazardous duty pay for federal employees. Here are the details.

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 two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Cooperman v. Social Security Administration, a pro se case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board that found “good cause to remove Mr. Cooperman from his position as an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration.” In a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Hughes, and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment “[b]ecause the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and because the Board did not otherwise err in its analysis.” This is our opinion summary.

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 an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.