FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update five amicus briefs were filed that support neither party. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in a patent case, a takings case, and a case addressing use of Federal Circuit Rule 36. In addition, a waiver of the right to respond a petition was filed in a pro se case, a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case, and the Supreme Court denied a petition in another patent case. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hamill v. Collins, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Mr. Hamill appealed an order dismissing his petition after the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded his petition was moot and that no exception to mootness applied. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Chen and Stark, the panel vacated the order and remanded the case for the lower court to reconsider a question related to mootness. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, two Rule 36 judgments, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. All three precedential opinions come in patent cases: one reviews an order holding asserted claims indefinite; another addresses the eligibility of asserted claims; and a third reviews a finding of a firm’s conflict of interest. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced temporary inaccessibility of the courthouse to the public due to an incident in the vicinity of the National Courts Building. Shortly later, the court announced that access to the National Courts Building was restored. Here is the full text of the two announcements.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases raising questions related to eligibility, the presumption of validity, and de minimis infringement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one Rule 36 judgment, and one errata. All three opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgment and errata.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Christensen v. United States, a second tax case from March’s argument week that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit has become, in the space of two years, one of the most consensus-oriented appellate courts in the federal system”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision seemed to deal with a “narrow administrative law issue,” but the “effect of the decision is far broader”;
• an article discussing how USPTO Director John Squires “issued numerous orders . . . holding that patent challenges should not move forward” because the challengers took “inconsistent claim construction positions” in court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article reporting how “more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits” since the Supreme Court “declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal.”

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bruyea v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing American citizens residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, three Rule 36 judgments, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The first nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case appealed from a district court. The second comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.