FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case. Two of the nonprecedential orders transfer cases, while the third nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a case that attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a takings claim by owners of residential rental properties. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the owners did state a claim for a physical taking, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a statement commenting on that the Senate Judiciary Committee’s “historic markup of three bipartisan, bicameral pro-patent bills” this Thursday;
• an article reporting that a bipartisan group of Representatives has recently “introduced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2024’ (NO FAKES Act)” in the House of Representatives;
• an article highlighting 11 key patent cases to “look out for” this fall in both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and four nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion comes in a government contract case, while the second comes in a patent case. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, while the second comes in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Two of the nonprecedential orders grant motions to transfer, a third denies a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the fourth is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and all of the orders other than the dismissal, which we link.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion. It affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article reporting how a “coalition of conservative groups are asking senators to swiftly pass two bipartisan bills meant to protect intellectual property rights and promote American innovation”;
• an announcement that registration has opened for a symposium at American University featuring Judge Stark that will be “composed of various panels to discuss developing legal issues exclusive to the Federal Circuit”;
• a blog post discussing “three separate orders” recently issued by the Federal Circuit “denying petitions for writs of mandamus related to venue transfer decisions”; and
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision rejecting “Google LLC’s bid for review of a ruling . . . in light of a U.S. Supreme Court case that abolished deference to government agencies.”

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that it received a lunar sample from NASA collected by Astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr, the first American in space in 1961. The announcement states that “this fragment, along with other space memorabilia, are on loan to the Federal Circuit from NASA and will soon be on display in the National Courts Building as part of its new Center for Innovation & Law opening in early 2025.” The Center for Innovation & Law is a major initiative of Chief Judge Moore. It will display the moon rock to highlight how portions of the National Courts Building complex served as the original headquarters of NASA. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first reverses a determination of the Court of Federal Claims that a breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations, vacates the remainder of the lower court’s decision, and remands for further proceedings. The second opinion affirms a dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 pro se case, new waivers of the right to respond were filed by the government in one takings case and three pro se cases, and one new reply in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising a question regarding the relationship between patent term adjustment and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in dismissing the case as moot and denying Freund’s request for class certification. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk that was joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the case was not moot as to the class claims because it “satisfie[d] the inherently transitory standard” and that the lower court “abused its discretion in finding that the adequacy and commonality requirements for class certifications were not met.” This is our opinion summary