FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. The opinion vacates and remands based on the finding of an incorrect claim construction ruling by the district court. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. The first order deconsolidates cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, dismisses some of the cases, and informs the parties how they are to proceed on the remainder of the cases. The second order summarily affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a case for failure to pay the docketing fee. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued in two weeks, the court will convene 12 panels to consider about 58 cases. Of these 58 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 41. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: one patent case, one military records case, and one veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. The opinion describes that the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the case due to an incorrect claim construction ruling. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders. Two of the orders dismiss cases for untimely filings, and one grants an unopposed motion to remand for arbitration. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

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.