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. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and a pro se case. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in five pro se cases; briefs in opposition in two patent cases; a supplemental brief in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two new amicus briefs in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two cases addressing Rule 36. Here are the details.

Last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the Veterans Court did not err by “tak[ing] due account” of the Department of Veterans Affair’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and applying a clear error standard of review for factual issues. In a decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling. The Court held that the Veterans Court reviews the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule by reviewing legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error, and that the VA’s determination that the evidence is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error. Notably, Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in three patent cases and three pro se cases. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond in one of those patent cases and an amicus brief in another patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to enablement of prior art. The Court also received a brief in opposition in a patent case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a reply in support of a petition in a trade case, and an amicus brief in another patent case addressing alleged improper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases. The court also received a waiver of the right to respond to one of the petitions in those patent cases, a brief in opposition to a petition in another patent case, and three new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in yet another patent case. Here are the details.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility and the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in another patent case and a pro se case, as well as a brief in opposition in a trade case. Here are the details.

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. While no new petitions were filed, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in a veterans case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Notably, on Friday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a veterans case. In addition, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to motions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 60, the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, and the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in patent cases; the court received waivers of the right to respond to petitions in one patent case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief was filed in a case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari presented in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Supreme Court indicated it will consider the following question: “Given the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim ‘involving . . . retired pay’ under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?” What follows the break is the relevant background and question presented by Soto’s counsel.