FedCircuitBlog

This week we are previewing three arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight LaBonte v. United States, a veterans case where LaBonte is challenging a “Court of Federal Claims decision that military correction boards established under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 may not grant disability retirement to service members whose ‘Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty,’ a standard separation document known as a ‘DD-214’ form, contains reference to a court martial.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiff-appellant, LaBonte, one by Military Law Practitioners and another a joint brief by the National Veterans Legal Services Program and Protect Our Defenders. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit agreed that a claim was barred by a six-year statute of limitations. Notably, Judge Newman dissented. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. Furthermore, no new petitions have been filed. That said, the government filed two waivers of right to respond; a petitioner filed a reply in a case raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims; and the Court denied certiorari in five cases: two in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a trade case, one in a patent case, and one in a case filed by a pro se petitioner. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a veterans case and addresses the prejudicial error analysis conducted by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second opinion comes in an international trade case and addresses a tariff classification. Finally, the court late in the day yesterday released two nonprecedential orders dismissing cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

On March 16, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Monroe v. United States, an Equal Access to Justice Act case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United States asked the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterized as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in ordering it to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses. Monroe, for his part, maintained he “prevailed at each procedural stage of the litigation” and, as result, “a fully compensatory fee award was warranted.” The National Veterans Legal Services Program filed an amicus brief in support of Monroe. The Federal Circuit, however, agreed with the government and reversed the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, three new petitions have been filed: one in an Equal Access to Justice Act case and two in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility and enhanced damages; members of Congress filed an amicus brief in an employment law case that involves interpretation of the Reservists Pay Security Act; the government submitted a brief in opposition in a case concerning the Tucker Act and another brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the non-obviousness requirement; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied review in four cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Texas. The opinion reversed a finding of invalidity. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, in the fourth case, Judge Prost wrote a concurring opinion to explain that had a patentability challenge been preserved it likely would have succeeded. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders concerning, respectively, a dismissal for failure to prosecute and two voluntary dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 three opinions: the first in an Equal Access to Justice Act case, the second granting petitions seeking writs of mandamus challenging orders of the Western District of Texas regarding transfer motions, and the third in a trademark case. We also highlight a response brief filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, and his opinion was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman. In the dissenting judges’ view, the panel decision confused patent law’s written description requirement. In addition to this order, the court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorneys’ fees. Finally, late yesterday the court issued a nonprecedential order concerning a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.