Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, we posted a recap of the oral argument in President Trump’s case pending at the Court. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; an amicus brief was filed in a trademark case; and the Court denied four petitions raising questions in two patent cases and two pro se cases. Here are the details.
Granted Petitions
Since our last update, we posted a recap of the oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the case decided by the Federal Circuit involving challenges to President Trump’s tariffs.
Pending Petitions
New Petitions
Since our last update, three new petitions were filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
In Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp., a patent case, Agilent Technologies filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:
- “Should printed publications be presumed to be enabling when a party challenging the validity of issued patent claims asserts that a printed publication is anticipatory prior art, such that the burden of proving that the printed publication is nonenabling lies with the patentee?”
- “Should the holding in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005), that ‘proof of efficacy is not required in order for a reference to be enabled for purposes of anticipation,’ be vacated or significantly narrowed?”
In Green v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Bradley E. Green filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether the United States Postal Service violated Petitioner’s Due Process Rights pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution by terminating Petitioner’s employment, and depriving Petitioner of a protected property interest, without conducting a full, fair and impartial investigation and hearing?”
- “Whether the Merit System Protections Board decision, premised on multiple factual errors, was arbitrary and capricious in violation of 5 U.S.C. §7703 (c)(3), thereby warranting review by this Court?”
- “Whether the Merit System Protections Board abused its discretion by failing to consider and apply all the Alonzo factors in determining whether good cause existed for the appellant’s untimely filing in violation of 5 U.S.C. §7703 (c)(1)?”
In Marcum v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a pro se case, William D. Marcum filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is violated when the Merit Systems Protection Board relies on perjured testimony, denies discovery, and excludes exculpatory evidence in dismissing an employee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
- Whether a federal court may treat the use of perjury, suppression of discovery, and refusal to consider newly discovered evidence of government witness misconduct as ‘harmless error’ in reviewing an MSPB decision.”
- “Whether under 5 C.F.R. § 715.202, an employee retains the right to rescind a resignation before its effective date, and whether an agency may lawfully refuse rescission absent a valid, articulated reason.”
Reply Brief
Since our last update, the City of Fresno filed its reply brief in City of Fresno v. United States, a takings case. The petition asked the Court to review the following questions:
- “Whether Reclamation’s refusal to release available water for growers’ use is a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.”
- “Whether in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 372, the beneficial users of Reclamation Project irrigation water have compensable water-property rights under the Fifth Amendment.”
Now, in its reply brief, the City of Fresno argues the “Federal Circuit’s rejection of the petitioner water districts’ takings claim” gave the “the Bureau of Reclamation free rein to deprive growers anywhere in the United States of their state-law property rights in Reclamation Project water without payment of compensation.” The City of Fresno contends the Federal Circuit’s holding is wrong because “it directly conflicts with the plain language of Section 8 of the Reclamation Act.” According to the City of Fresno, “Section 8 preserves state law relating to ‘appropriation, control, use, or distribution of [Reclamation Project] water used in irrigation.'” The City of Fresno argues consistency with Section 8 requires that “state water law must vest (or be construed to vest) ownership of Reclamation Project water property rights in the landowners.” The City of Fresno maintains “the Friant Division growers have California state-law water-property rights in Reclamation Project water.” In sum, it contends, the “Court should grant certiorari to correct the Federal Circuit’s fundamentally flawed takings analysis and reaffirm that under Section 8, ‘the water rights [are] the property of landowners.'”
Amicus Brief
Since our last update, the Organization for Transformative Works filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case. The petition presented the following question:
- “Whether a party desiring to participate in an administrative agency proceeding, including a trademark opposition proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, must satisfy the zone-of-interests and proximate-causation tests set forth in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014), for causes of action in federal court.”
In its amicus brief, the Organization for Transformative Works argues the Supreme Court “has made clear that commercial entities should not be able to use trademark law to monopolize material within the public domain.” It argues the Supreme Court needs to address “whether the public has standing to oppose an application to register a public domain term as the trademark of an item embodying public domain material under the framework used below.” According to the Organization, addressing this question is “necessary because the text, legislative history, and treatment of the Lanham Act’s ‘zone of interest’ provision are all unclear as to who falls within the ‘commercial’ zone of interest for trademark registration purposes.” Moreover, it argues, accepting the Federal Court’s holding allows common items to be “privatized in pieces thereby threatening the right of the public to use and create embodiments of characters like the Virgin Mary, Santa Claus, Cinderella, Rapunzel, and others in the public domain.”