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, a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and five pro se cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a veterans case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in ten cases. Here are the details.

Pending Cases

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 Petition

Since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to appellate procedure. In Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. WhereverTV, Inc., Comcast filed a petition asking the Court to review the following question:

  • “Whether a court of appeals may override the principle of party presentation by deciding sua sponte a non-jurisdictional issue that a party deliberately waived.”

Waivers of the Right to Respond

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

Reply Brief

Since our last update, Julien P. Champagne filed a reply brief in support of his petition in Champagne v. Collins, a veterans case. 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 its brief in opposition, the government argued the Federal Circuit “correctly interpreted” 38 C.F.R. 3.151(a). Collins contended the “decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of another court of appeals.” Additionally, Collins asserted, “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.”

Now, in his reply brief, Champagne argues VA “narrowly construed his initial claim based on an erroneous interpretation of a VA claims-processing regulation.” According to Champagne, “[u]nder 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) and the statutory and regulatory duties to help veterans seeking benefits develop their claims, the VA is generally required to consider a pension claim as a compensation claim and award ‘[t]he greater benefit.'” Also, Champagne contends, the government’s “position renders effectively obsolete a regulation designed to protect disabled veterans.” Additionally, Champagne asserts, the “Solicitor General’s arguments against certiorari are meritless” and the Supreme Court’s “intervention is necessary to restore the pro-veteran, non-adversarial system Congress established.”

Denials

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