Today the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and one precedential erratum. Here is the introductions to the opinion and the erratum.
Here is an update on recent (and classic) scholarship related to the Federal Circuit and its jurisdiction and jurisprudence. This month we are highlighting one piece related to the Federal Circuit’s treatment of patent law’s doctrine of equivalents, one piece related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction over government contracts, and one piece of classic scholarship related to the court’s formation.
I’m excited to announce several new ways for you to stay up to date on Federal Circuit cases and news. We have created a daily digest email as well as a presence on various social media platforms. Read on for the details.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report covers an article on a recent petition for rehearing by Capital One Financial, a discussion of the Federal Circuit’s second decision in the past month involving Campbell Soup and Gamon Plus, and a comment on when judicial economy can lead to error.
Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in an international trade case, one precedential opinion in an IRS case, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While there is no new activity to report in the merits cases, the Supreme Court did deny two petitions for certiorari. And while no new petitions were filed this week, two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed, and as were several amicus briefs.
Today the Federal Circuit sua sponte granted en banc rehearing in a veterans case, Francway v. Wilkie. Beyond granting rehearing, the en banc court also withdrew a previously issued precedential opinion in this case and issued a new precedential opinion replacing it.
In the new opinion, the en banc court responded to the argument that the “presumption of competency” used in reviewing the opinions of Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) medical examiners conflicts with the VA’s statutory duty to assist veterans and the statutory benefit-of-the-doubt rule used in veterans cases when the evidence is in approximate equipoise.
The en banc court overruled its caselaw to the extent that caselaw is inconsistent with merely requiring veterans to raise the issue of the competency of medical examiners, and it noted that “the requirement that the veteran raise the issue of the competency of the medical examiner is best referred to simply as a ‘requirement’ and not a ‘presumption of competency.’”