Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in takings cases. The government also waived its right to respond to petitions filed in two patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.
Granted Cases
There is no new activity to report.
Petition Cases
New Petitions
Three new petitions were filed with the Court.
In Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, the petitioner asked the Court to consider the following questions:
- “If the United States causes a company to transfer to the United States for the public benefit private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company, do the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking?”
- “Were the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by petitioners cognizable property rights protected by the Takings Clause?”
In Cacciapalle v. United States, the petitioner asked the Court to consider the following questions:
- “Did the Federal Circuit err in barring as ‘substantively derivative’ the claims of private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the Taking of their shareholder rights, and the transfer of 100% of their economic interest to the U.S. Treasury, without making a determination as to whether the private shareholders had identified a valid property right that they directly owned and that the government had taken?”
- “Were the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by shareholders cognizable property rights protected by the Takings Clause?”
In Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, the petitioner asked the Court the following question:
- “If the United States causes a company to transfer to the United States for the public benefit private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company, do the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking?”
Waivers of Right to Respond
The government waived its right to respond in Filler v. United States, a patent case raising a question about the Fifth Amendment.
The government waived its right to respond in SawStop Holding LLC v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, a patent case raising questions about non-statutory double patenting.
The government waived its right to respond in Tulipat v. United States, a case filed by a pro se petitioner.