Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no new activity to report related to granted cases. With respect to petitions cases, however, a petitioner presented the Court with three questions in a case involving a government contract, the government filed a response to a petition in a veterans case related to the Equal Access to Justice Act, a veteran filed a reply in support of her petition related to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1984, and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petition

In CANVS Corp. v. Barrett, CANVS asks the Court to review the following three questions:

  1. “Can the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, an administrative panel, deprive a corporation of valuable intellectual property without due process?”
  2. “Does due process require the ASBCA to consider all evidence submitted at trial before rendering an adverse judgement?”
  3. “Did the ASBCA’s (i) refusal to reach a determination on the ‘bundle of rights’ granted and (ii) the CAFC’s refusal to consider damages evidence deprive CANVS of due process?”

New Response

In Porcopio v. Wilkie, the government argues that certiorari should be denied. The petitioner asked the Court to consider the appropriate standard to determine whether veterans should receive their attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government argued, however, that the Federal Circuit’s “decision is correct and does not conflict with any decision of this Court or any other court of appeals,” and moreover that “Petitioner appears to acknowledge . . . that accepting his lead argument would require overruling this Court’s longstanding construction of EAJA’s ‘substantially justified’ standard.”

New Reply

In Hollingsworth v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Hollingsworth’s reply brief argues that “the Government’s Response, like the underlying opinions, does not address the central provisions” of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1984, “the applicable regulations, or applicable case law,” and that the government’s positions “fundamentally conflict with the Act and its regulations.”


The Court denied the petition in INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., which asked the Court to review “whether a method of treatment that requires doctors to selectively administer a drug to certain patients and not others to enhance patient outcomes is eligible for patent protection under Section 101 of the Patent Act.”