Supreme Court Activity

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, one new petition was filed in a Tucker Act case asking the Court to consider questions related to alleged federal government payment obligations. Also, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case, and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petition

A new petition was filed with the Court in Indiana Municipal Power Agency v. United States. The petitioner presented the following questions for review:

  1. “Whether a payment obligation imposed by Congress on the federal government under a money-mandating statute and specifically exempted from later reduction can be reduced, without congressional repeal, by agencies based on administrative interpretations of later-enacted statutes that make no reference to the payment obligation contained in the earlier statute.”
  2. “Whether a statutory provision creates a contractual obligation when its language and the parties’ course of dealing reflect an intent to contract by the government.”

Amicus Brief

An amicus brief was filed by US Inventor Inc. and the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in Killian v. Vidal, a patent case concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In its brief, amici support the petitioner and express disagreement with the Federal Circuit. The brief argues that, “at every stage, government-supplied reasons for its Alice rejection constantly shifted and morphed.” It contends the petition “offers a straightforward opportunity for this Court to end the confusion wrought by its Alice test, and to restore broad patent eligibility that would spur much-needed innovation in the future.”

Waiver of Right to Respond

The government waived its right to respond in Williams v. United States, a pro se case.