FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an international trade dispute. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case. One of the nonprecedential orders grants a motion for summary affirmance, while two of the orders transfer cases. The remaining two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, plus links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion vacates a judgment of non-infringement, reverses an exclusion of testimony, and remands a patent case for further proceedings. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case in which a veteran requested a retroactive promotion. The second nonprecedential opinion dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court decided a veterans case law week, addressing the question of 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. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case that the court reviewed en banc. As explained in Judge Taranto’s opinion, a “majority of the court (as reflected in this opinion and the concurrence) agree[d], and the court [held], that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at issue, the required effective date of such benefits is the date that the veteran would have had in the absence of the challenged government conduct—imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. One other thing to note: Judge Wallach participated in the court’s en banc consideration of the case, despite being a senior judge, because he was on the original panel, and as a result this case was decided by a thirteen-judge panel. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the court received the appellee’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to the ability to revise infringement contentions during litigation and denied two petitions raising questions related respectively to vacatur of a preliminary injunction 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, the court received the appellant’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court lifted a stay of proceedings in a veteran’s benefits case and requested supplemental briefing. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to the vacatur of a preliminary injunction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.