FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a pro se tax dispute decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Over a dissent by Judge Newman, the court affirmed both a dismissal of the case and a denial of a motion for leave to amend the underlying complaint. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit issued nine opinions and orders this morning:

• The court issued a precedential opinion in a veterans law case, affirming the upholding of a denial of an earlier effecting date for a service-connected disability over a dissent by Judge Newman.
• The court issued two orders and a precedential opinion in another veterans law case on remand from the Supreme Court. The first order granted panel rehearing, the panel withdrew and replaced its original opinion with a new precedential opinion, and the second order denied rehearing en banc. The new panel opinion declined to apply Auer deference to a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation and affirmed a decision of the Veterans Court, which in turn had affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for a service-connected disability. Judge Reyna dissented. Notably, the order denying rehearing en banc elicited five separate concurring and dissenting opinions.
• The court issued a related nonprecedential order and precedential opinion in a trade case. The order unsealed the opinion, which affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to affirm the Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty order covering carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
• The court issued two nonprecedential opinions affirming the Court of Federal Claims in two government contract appeals involving the same parties.
• The court issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance in case appealed from the Northern District of California.

Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case affirming the Court of International Trade’s determination of duty-free treatment of the active ingredient in a medication for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a dismissal for lack of eligibility, a nonprecedential order unsealing the trade opinion, and an erratum. Here are are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and link to the erratum.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions for rehearing en banc: one in a patent case raising a question related to the doctrine of equivalents, and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another dismissing an appeal for lack of constitutional standing. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement case. Notably, this order marked the second grant of mandamus against the Western District of Texas in the same case. The first grant of mandamus required the Western District of Texas to rule on a long-pending motion to transfer, while this second grant of mandamus requires the Western District of Texas to transfer the case.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• Three new response briefs were filed with the Court in the following cases: Merit Medical Systems, Inc. v. Khan, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, and Sandoz Inc. v. Immunex Corp.
• Two new response briefs were filed with the Court in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC and Khan v. Merit Medical Systems Inc.
• The Court received one new waiver of right to respond from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Blanton v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued six nonprecedential opinions: four in patent cases, one in a tax case affirming a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued nonprecedential opinions in two veterans cases, a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a patent case reversing a dismissal and remanding the case to determine standing, and another a patent case affirming the denial of attorney fees. The court also issued a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States by Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., Highmark Inc., L.A. Care Health Plan, and Molina Healthcare of California, Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in three cases.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case affirming a judgment of noninfringement. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.