FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, as we noted last week the Supreme Court recently held held oral argument in one case decided by the Federal Circuit and issued an opinion in another. With respect to pending petitions, the Court granted two petitions, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases in light of the Court’s holding in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Also, a new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the ability of a court of appeals to revive a waived argument; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility and Federal Circuit Rule 36; and a brief in opposition was filed in yet another patent case raising questions concerning so-called skinny labels. Finally, the Court denied two petitions, one raising questions related to ripeness of takings claims and the other raising a question related to the on-sale bar to patentability. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument recap.

On April 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that a “federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to ‘any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency’ is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that his service was substantively connected in some particular way to some particular emergency.” Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument and issued opinions, respectively, in two cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to pending petitions, three new petitions have been filed in two patent cases and a pro se case, a brief in opposition and a reply brief was filed in case raising a question related to certification of questions of law, and another reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case. Finally, since our last update the Court has denied two petitions, one raising questions related to recusal and the other raising a question related to patent infringement. 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 petitions, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a government contract case; a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a takings case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in the same takings case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five 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 petitions, oral argument in Soto v. United States will take place later this month. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond to the petition in that patent case, along with a reply brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. While no new petitions were filed, waivers of the right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied a petition in another 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 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.