FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions in three veterans cases and two patent cases. The Federal Circuit also 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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three non precedential opinions: one affirming a decision by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals in favor of Veterans Affairs; one affirming a district court’s order granting a motion for attorneys’ fees in a patent case; and one affirming an arbitrator’s sustaining of a dismissal of a federal employee from her employment. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a prededential en banc opinion in a veterans case, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, concluding that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the case and that a Federal Circuit rule is invalid given the applicable statute of limitations. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

This week we are previewing four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 one disposition in a veterans case, new briefs filed in two patent cases raising due process questions related to post grant review proceedings, four recent oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases, and four upcoming oral arguments in patent, veterans, and takings cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order and a modified precedential opinion in a patent case as well as a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential errata. Here are the introductions of the opinions, the text of the order, and the text of the errata.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a new brief was filed in one of the two pending veterans cases. As for pending petitions, highlights include two new petitions, one in a patent case raising questions related to claim construction and one in a pro se case; and the denial of four petitions in patent cases raising questions related to obviousness, prosecution history estoppel, vitiation, reasonable royalties, and sanctions. Here are the details.