FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in an employment case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case and a patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the public release of a letter and order in the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. The letter seeks “clarification of the Special Committee’s order as to the scope of investigation and the hearing” scheduled for July 13 and requests “that the hearing be open to the public.” The order indicates the July 13 hearing will not be open to the public. It also indicates “the only subject counsel should address in the brief due on July 5 (and at the hearing on July 13) is whether Judge Newman’s refusal to comply with the Committee’s orders seeking (i) neurological and neuropsychological testing, (ii) medical records, and (iii) an interview constitutes misconduct.” Here is the full text of the announcement, with links to the letter and order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se patent case. In it, the court addressed whether the lack of compliance with a court order was appropriately handled by the district court when it sanctioned the appellant. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court decided a veterans case law week, addressing the question of whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case that the court reviewed en banc. As explained in Judge Taranto’s opinion, a “majority of the court (as reflected in this opinion and the concurrence) agree[d], and the court [held], that when a veteran has been determined to be entitled to benefits for one or more disabilities connected to participation in the Edgewood program at issue, the required effective date of such benefits is the date that the veteran would have had in the absence of the challenged government conduct—imposition of the secrecy oath with no VA route for claim presentation and proof to vindicate the benefits entitlement.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. One other thing to note: Judge Wallach participated in the court’s en banc consideration of the case, despite being a senior judge, because he was on the original panel, and as a result this case was decided by a thirteen-judge panel. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

Late last Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders today given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is the link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”). In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.