FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a trademark case. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two in patent cases, and two in veterans cases. Finally, the court issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. 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 one precedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: two concerning appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a veterans case, and one in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contracts case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for writs of mandamus in two nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in another nonprecedential order. The writ of mandamus vacates an order by the Western District of Texas to hold a patent case in its Waco Division rather than its Austin Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions: one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed 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 recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Telephonic oral argument was scheduled in the veterans case pending before the en banc court. As for petitions in patent cases, highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to transfer of venue and eligible subject matter; a new invitation to respond to a petition raising a question related to venue in the context of Hatch-Waxman; and three amicus briefs filed in support of a petitioner in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal of a denial of benefits in a veterans case decided by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.