Featured / Petitions / Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a government contract case, one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a copyright case, and one amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

New Petition

Since our last update, a new petition was filed in Hamp’s Construction LLC v. Secretary of the Army, a government contract case that presents the following questions:

  1. “Whether a Government construction contract containing the Differing Site Conditions clause, project-wide subsurface boring logs, drawings depicting construction traffic on the affected bank, and an amended solicitation authorizing barge-based work may be construed to make no representation whatsoever about the physical suitability of the affected bank for the construction operations the project required.”
  2. “Whether the Federal Circuit may reject a Type I differing site condition claim as a matter of contract interpretation by treating the absence of a boring at the precise location of a latent failure as dispositive, notwithstanding evidence that the contract documents, read as a whole, indicated stable conditions suitable for top-of-bank construction operations.”
  3. “Whether, in a Government-drafted construction contract containing ambiguous or incomplete site-condition information, the Government may avoid responsibility under the Differing Site Conditions clause by characterizing its own drawings, traffic designations, and available geotechnical information as nonrepresentative after performance reveals latent subsurface failures.”

Waiver of the Right to Respond

Since our last update, respondent ASM Research, LLC filed a waiver of the right to respond to the petition in HEALTHeSTATE, LLC v. United States, a copyright case.

Amicus Brief

Since our last update, Unified Patents, LLC. filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. As a reminder Apple presented the following questions:

  1. “Whether a patentee fails to establish ‘significant employment of labor or capital’ ‘with respect to the articles protected by the patent’ under 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3)(B) where the patentee’s investment falls into one of three uses listed only in §1337(a)(3)(C).”
  2. “Whether the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of an agency decision where (1) the court’s rationale does not appear in the agency’s opinion and (2) the agency’s result was not required by law is contrary to SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943), and its progeny.”