Featured / FedCircuitBlog / 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 two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case, a case addressing sanctions, and a pro se case. The Supreme Court also denied petitions in a veterans case, a case addressing the Quiet Title Act, and four pro se cases. Here are the details.

Pending Cases

Since our last update, there has been no activity at the Supreme Court in the two cases pending at the Court that were decided by the Federal Circuit. As a reminder, earlier this month the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. 

Pending Petitions

New Petitions

Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

In ThermoLife International LLC v. BPI Sports, LLC, ThermoLife International filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:

  1. “Whether an imposition of sanctions against a party and not its attorney under a court’s inherent authority can be upheld by the mere talismanic recitation of the phrase ‘bad faith’ when courts are in conflict about whether an inherent-authority sanction requires bad faith and when the appeals court does not rely on the district court’s key finding on bad faith.”
  2. “Whether an imposition of sanctions under a court’s inherent authority can be affirmed based on conduct that was not sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.”

In King v. United States, William King filed a petition asking the Court to review the following question:

  • “Under the Takings Clause, does a per se rule apply when a government authorizes one private party to appropriate another party’s vested right to payment of money?”

In Healy v. Squires, a pro se case, Noah Healy filed a petition asking the Court to review the following questions:

  1. “Whether an Article III court may affirm an administrative agency decision while dismissing unrebutted record evidence as ‘unpersuasive,’ without providing any explanation sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
  2. “Whether an Article III court may affirm an administrative agency decision that rests on contradictory statutory determinations, without reconciling those inconsistencies or providing an explanation sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Denials

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