Featured / Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, there has been a lot of activity:

  • eight new petitions were filed, one in a patent case and seven in pro se cases;
  • nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases, a veterans case, an MSPB case, a government contracts case, and pro se cases;
  • fourt briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and government contracts case;
  • three reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in the same Quiet Title Act case, a trademark case, and the same government contracts case;
  • sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases;
  • supplemental briefs were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and
  • the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases, a takings case, a case addressing jurisdiction and a pro se case.

Here are the details.

Granted Petitions

Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.

Pending Petitions

New Petitions

Since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and seven new petitions were filed in pro se cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

In Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, a patent case, Bright Data filed a petition asking the Court to review the following question:

  • “When a patentee disclaims subject matter from the scope of its claims by written statements made at any time during U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proceedings, including during an inter partes review, are courts precluded from construing the claims more broadly than the scope of the disclaimer?”

In Williamson v. Collins, a pro se case, Garland O. Williamson filed a petition asking the Court to review the following question:

  • “Whether a federal appellate court may affirm the dismissal of a statutory claim without interpreting the governing statute, without applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that courts ‘decide all relevant questions of law,’ 5 U.S.C. § 706, and without enforcing mandate-fixed factual predicates established earlier in the same litigation—where the court below treated statutory meaning as irrelevant and relied on factual premises that contradict the litigation’s binding mandate.”

Peter Joseph Polinski filed three new petitions in the following three pro se cases:

Three more new petitions were filed in the following pro se cases:

Waivers of the Right to Respond

Since our last update, nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the following cases:

Briefs in Opposition

Since our last update, briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and a government contracts case.

Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States

The United States filed a brief in opposition in Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States, a Quiet Title Act case. The petition presented the following question:

  • “Is a Quiet Title Act claim timely if it is filed within twelve years of the government asserting an interest in plaintiff’s property, after government officials previously disavowed any interest in the same property?”

Now, in its brief in opposition, the United States argues the Federal Circuit “correctly rejected” the petitioner’s Quiet Title Act claim that the “government abandoned its interest” in the relevant property. The United States contends the Federal Circuit “did not reject the possibility that the government’s abandonment of a property interest could affect the running of the QTA’s statute of limitations.” Instead, according to the United States, the Federal Circuit’s “opinion is best read as simply holding that no such abandonment had occurred here.” Furthermore, the United States maintains the Federal Circuit’s decision “does not implicate any circuit conflict.”

Champagne v. Collins

In Champagne v. Collins, a veterans case, Secretary Collins filed a brief in opposition. The petition presented the following question:

  • “Whether the VA must process a disability claim as a claim for both pension and compensation if the veteran has a possible entitlement to both benefits and award ‘the greater’ benefit available as provided by 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a), or whether the VA instead has discretion to disregard a potentially meritorious compensation claim and therefore afford the lesser benefit available to the veteran.”

In the brief in opposition, Collins argues the Federal Circuit “correctly interpreted” 38 C.F.R. 3.151(a). Collins contends the “decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of another court of appeals.” Additionally, Collins asserts, “the petition for a writ of certiorari rests on a new legal theory that petitioner did not advance below and that the Court should not consider in the first instance.”

Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States

The United States and CACI, Inc.-Federal filed briefs in opposition in this government contract case. The petition asked the Court to review the following question:

  • “Did the en banc Federal Circuit err in holding that a person must meet the requirements for challenging a solicitation or contract award under the first two prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) to qualify as an ‘interested party’ who can challenge violations under the broader third prong?”

In its brief in opposition, the government argues the Federal Circuit’s conclusion the petitioner is not an “interested party” with “statutory standing to sue under the Tucker Act” does “not warrant” the Supreme Court’s review. The government contends the Federal Circuit’s “decision is correct and reaffirms Federal Circuit precedent that has governed bid protests for decades.” Furthermore, the government asserts, the “case will almost certainly become moot in January 2026 when the task order in which petitioner seeks to participate will expire.”

In its own brief in opposition, CACI, Inc.-Federal argues the Supreme Court “should deny certiorari because the Federal Circuit’s decision merely reaffirms longstanding precedent.” According to the brief, the Federal Circuit’s decision “has limited legal or practical significance, because the decision below was correct.”

Reply Briefs

Since our last update, three reply briefs have been filed in the Quiet Title Claim Act case discussed above, a trademark case, and the government contract case discussed above.

Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States

In Chinook Landing, LLC v. United States, the Quiet Title Claim Act case discussed above, Chinook Landing filed a reply brief in support of its petition. In its reply brief, Chinook Landing argues the “Circuits are split on whether and to what extent statements from agency officials cause a Quiet Title Act claim to accrue.” Chinook Landing contends other Circuits would view the Bonneville Power Administration’s disclaimer of any property interest as a reason to allow a “quiet title action to reach the merits.” According to Chinook Landing, “the Federal Circuit split with those circuits, holding instead that the BPA’s statements were irrelevant.” Therefore, it argues, the “petition should be granted to resolve this conflict.”

Vetements Group AG v. Stewart

In Vetements Group AG v. Stewart, a trademark case, Vetements Group filed a reply brief to the government’s brief in opposition. The petition asked the Court to review the following questions:

  1. “Whether protection of a non-English mark is controlled by consumer perception of the mark taken at face value or controlled by its English translation.”
  2. ”What is the proper test for determining genericness or descriptiveness of a non-English mark.”

In its brief in opposition, the government argued this is a “textbook case” for applying “the doctrine of foreign equivalents” to the “proposed ‘Vetements’ marks.” The government maintained the Federal Circuit’s “decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals.” And it said the Court should “take the same course here” as it did when it “recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari that presented related issues.”

Now, in Vetements Group’s reply brief, it argues the Federal Circuit’s “categorial application” of a “judicially generated concept to overcome an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review.” Vetements Group maintains “no trademark by which the goods of an applicant may be distinguished from those of others shall be refused registration unless an exclusion applies.” Vetements Group argues it is “the burden of Respondent to establish the basis for refusal,” which requires the “perception of the trademark by the American consuming public.” Furthermore, Vetements Group argues, “this case presents an outcome-determinative circuit conflict that this Court should resolve.”

Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States

In the government contract case discussed above, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, Percipient.ai filed a reply brief in support of its petition. In its reply brief, Percipient.ai argues the Federal Circuit’s “understanding of the term ‘interested party’ in 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) is both grievously wrong and highly consequential.” According to Percipient.ai, if the Federal Circuit’s decision is not corrected, it will “permanently and incorrectly limit who may bring government contracting protests and foreclose enforcement of critical laws enacted by Congress.” Furthermore, Percipient.ai contends, “Congress further confirmed the case’s importance on December 18th by enacting this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.” Lastly, Percipient.ai asserts the government’s contention that the case will become moot is “baseless.”

Amicus Briefs

Since our last update, sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases.

Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

Since our last update, three new amicus briefs have been filed in this patent case. The petition asked the Court to review the following question:

  • “Whether patent applications that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are ‘prior art . . . printed publications’ within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §311(b).”

The amicus briefs, all of which support the petitioner, were filed by the following:

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc

Since our last update, the United States filed its amicus brief in this patent case after the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General. The petition presented the following questions:

  1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
  2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

Siples v. Collins

Since our last update, four amicus briefs were filed in Siples v. Collins, a veterans case. The petition asked the Court to review the following question: 

  • “To establish ‘clear and unmistakable error’ based on legal error, must a veteran show that there was an error of law at the time of the challenged decision which undebatably altered the outcome of the benefits decision, as the regulatory text provides, or must a veteran also show that the meaning of the law itself was undebatable, as the Federal Circuit held?”

Two amicus briefs support the petitioner and two support the petition for certiorari:

Dinh v. United States

Since our last update, Mark Elliot filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this takings case. The petition presented the following questions:

  1. “Can Congress insulate itself from Fifth Amendment takings liability by creating a separate, third-party entity and authorizing that entity to ‘independently’ take private property without paying for it?”
  2. “To state a claim for a Government-authorized third-party taking under the Fifth Amendment must the property owner also show that the third-party was coerced into taking the property?”

United Water Conservation District v. United States

Since our last update, seven amicus briefs have been filed in United Water Conservation District v. United States, another takings case. The petition presented the following question:

  • “Whether the government’s appropriation of water that a person had a property right to use is analyzed as a physical taking, rather than a regulatory taking, under the Fifth Amendment.”

Six amicus briefs, all supporting the petitioner, were filed by the following parties:

The seventh amicus brief, filed by Texas Farm Bureau, supports the petition for certiorari.

Supplemental Briefs

Since our last update, two supplemental briefs were filed by petitioners in the following cases:

Denials

Since our last update, the Supreme Court denied petitions in the following cases: