FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, five new amicus briefs were filed in another patent case, and two pro se petitions were denied. Here are the details.

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. The Federal Circuit had concluded that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Here is the introduction and conclusion of majority opinion. Next week we plan to post a full 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, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and the Court denied the petitions in a pro se case and in a veterans 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, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinion in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, one new waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, three new replies were filed in separate Merit Systems Protection Board cases all presenting the same question for review, and the Court denied two petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a judgment of the Federal Circuit in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review in the Federal Circuit is a “jurisdictional requirement” and therefore “precludes equitable exceptions.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, vacated and remanded the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respecct to granted cases, we are still waiting on the Supreme Court to issue opinions in one case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a patent case, three new waivers of the right to respond were filed in another patent case, and the Court denied a petition in a case raising questions related to design patent law. 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, yesterday the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of the two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that it is reviewing this term. With respect to petitions, the Supreme Court granted a petition in a veterans case, Bufkin v. McDonough. In addition, five new petitions were filed, four new briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, four new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one reply brief was filed. Finally, the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court is reviewing during its current term. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the deadline for a federal employee to appeal an adverse judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court today held that the deadline is not jurisdictional. The Court, however, did not reach the question of whether, as a result, equitable tolling is available, instead remanding the case for the Federal Circuit to rule on that issue. Here is the introduction to the Court’s opinion. We will provide an opinion summary next week.

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 its opinion last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. In a seven to two decision, the Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the case, finding that “[v]eterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits” up to a 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.