FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Adams v. United States, an employment case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between COVID-19 and Hazardous Duty Pay (HDP) and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) regulations, and in particular whether prison guards who come into contact with COVID-19 through either human to human contact or human contaminated mediums are entitled to EDP or HDP. Last week, the court issued a majority opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, which held that OPM’s regulations do not provide for HDP and EDP for working with or in proximity to individuals infected with COVID-19. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges dissented, however, arguing for reversal. Here is our summary of these opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. In the first, the court vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Nebraska. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims.  In the third, the Federal circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Tennessee. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. In the first, the court reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. In the second, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment in a patent case, this one appealed from the Southern District of Indiana. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in Doyon v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs in favor of Doyon. In the case, Doyon appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a decision by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records to deny an application to correct discharge records. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Newman and Linn, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case with instructions. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a ruling of unpatentability as a result of the public use bar in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first affirms a judgment in an inter partes review proceeding appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other two each dismiss a veterans case that was appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The en banc court held that the Office of Personnel Management to date has not adopted regulations that provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Newman. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order transferring a case to the Ninth Circuit and another nonprecedential order dismissing two appeals. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s finding that the property interests at issue were easements. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s construction of a specific term, vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to one patent, and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to another patent. The third comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and involve issues related to the Vaccine Act and jurisdiction, respectively. The third opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders late yesterday and this morning. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Illinois, and the other dismisses an appeal. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a response brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a contract case; the government waived its right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in a patent case addressing inter partes review estoppel; and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.