Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases attracted 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 dispositions, one in a veterans case addressing allegations of delay violating due process and one in a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. We also highlight two new patent cases, one addressing claim construction and the non-obviousness requirement and the other addressing the first-to-file rule and patent eligibility. We also note three upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Last week the court heard oral argument in the en banc veterans case. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include a new petition raising a question related to claim construction; new responses to petitions raising questions related to inter partes review and Rule 36 summary affirmances; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; a new amicus brief in a case raising questions related to inter partes review; and the denial of two petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and transfer of venue. Here are the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, one in a tax case, and one in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Yesterday, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Arellano v. Tran. In this case, the court is considering the availability of equitable tolling in the context of a statutory provision addressing veterans who request disability benefits by filing an application within one year from the date of the their discharge or release. This is our argument recap.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a veterans case, a second in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a third in a case dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued four Rule 36 judgments. 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. The en banc court will hear oral argument tomorrow in a veterans case. As for patent cases, highlights include new petitions questions related to inter partes review, enablement, and eligible subject matter; a new response to a petition raising questions related to the intersection of inducement of infringement and Hatch-Waxman; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to eligible subject matter, enablement, the intersection of venue and Hatch-Waxman, and the presumption of validity. Here are the details.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and one nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the court issued one nonprecedential order denying petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text from the order.
This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. As in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will convene 14 panels to consider about 66 cases. Of these 66 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 34. Of the argued cases, only one–Arellano v. Tran, an en banc veterans case–attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.
This week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monk v. Tran, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Judge Chen authored a unanimous panel opinion affirming in part a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and dismissing in part the appeal as moot. Specifically, the Federal Circuit agreed that a petition for a writ of mandamus filed at the Veterans Court was moot with respect to several veterans because, after the filing the petition but before the Veterans Court’s disposition of the petition, those veterans received decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals. The Federal Circuit similarly dismissed as moot another veteran’s appeal because, by the time of the Federal Circuit’s disposition of his appeal, he had received a Board decision on the merits of his case. This is our opinion summary.