FedCircuitBlog

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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case addressing alleged contempt of a consent decree, and a precedential order granting three petitions for writs of mandamus in patent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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a nonprecedential order denying a petition for patent and en banc rehearing in a patent infringement case, along with a nonprecedential opinion by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Hughes concerning the denial of panel rehearing and the argument their panel decision changed the law of enablement; and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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued six nonprecedential opinions: four in patent cases, one in a tax case affirming a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Guest Post by Gregory C. Sisk

In this blog post, I discuss Court of Federal Claims/Tucker Act decisions by the Federal Circuit on (1) the requirement of a money-mandating statute for statutory-based money claims, (2) whether a money-mandating requirement applies as well to claims to recover illegal exactions, (3) the special case of a breach of trust claim under the Indian Tucker Act, and (4) the continued availability of a Tucker Act taking claim even when a claim could alternatively be framed in tort. These 2020 Federal Circuit decisions affirmed the continued stability of Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction through careful application and welcome clarification and extension of established and common-sense Tucker Act doctrines.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and a precedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued four opinions: one precedential opinion in a patent case; one precedential opinion in a takings case; and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. The court also issued one Rule 36 judgement. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the Rule 36 judgement.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and nonprecedential opinions in three related patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.