FedCircuitBlog

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 week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. Due to the recent spike in COVID cases, all February oral arguments will be held remotely. As it has for some time now, however, the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued next week, the court will convene nine panels to consider about 41 cases. Of these 41 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 31. Of these argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one veterans case being heard en banc and one patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. In particular, the court will consider several related questions: (1) whether “granting Mr. Taylor’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date under the doctrine of equitable estoppel be contrary to statutory appropriations and thus barred by the Appropriations Clause;” (2) if equitable estoppel does not apply, whether Taylor has a claim for “denial of a constitutional right of access to [Veterans Affairs] processes for securing disability benefits for which he met the eligibility criteria;” and (3) if a right of access exists, whether the right of access was violated here and what the remedy is. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief and the court scheduled the oral argument to occur in February. We will post an argument preview prior to the oral argument. As for petitions for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received two new petitions raising questions relating to the standard for enhanced damages and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction. The court also received responses to two petitions raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to the interpretation of a forum selection clause, a writ of mandamus, and comparable licenses and royalty calculations, and another petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the Department of Veterans Affairs filed its en banc brief. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received a new petition filed by a pro se party and denied three petitions related to venue, eligibility, and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, five new amicus brief were filed in support of the appellant. As for requests for rehearing en banc in patent cases, the court received four new petitions raising questions relating to patent eligibility and claim construction. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions concerning the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the appropriate timing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, a new brief was filed. As for requests for rehearing en banc, the court received a new petition raising a question relating to the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness in patent cases. The court also received an amicus brief supporting rehearing to address the court’s handling of petitions for writs of mandamus seeking transfer in patent cases. Finally, the court denied petitions for rehearing in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

Last Friday the Federal Circuit sua sponte vacated its June 30, 2021 panel decision in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case asking whether a veteran was entitled to an earlier effective date for his benefits due to restraints on his ability to disclose his participation in “chemical agent exposure studies at the Edgewood Arsenal in Edgewood, Maryland (Edgewood Program).” The Federal Circuit also granted en banc review of the case. According to Friday’s order, the en banc court will consider whether application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel to provide the veteran with the earlier effective date violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause and, conversely, whether denial of the earlier effective date violates the constitutional right-of-access doctrine. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case addressing alleged contempt of a consent decree, and a precedential order granting three petitions for writs of mandamus in patent cases ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and three Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the summary afirmances.