FedCircuitBlog

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Boyer v. United States, an Equal Pay Act case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment rejecting a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. In an opinion by Judge Dyk joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed. The court found that “the EPA applies equally to the United States as to other employers and that mere reliance on prior compensation standing alone is not an affirmative defense to a prima facie case under the EPA, unless the employer can demonstrate that the prior pay itself was not based on sex.”

For the second day in a row the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions, in a case that attracted an amicus brief, addresses a petition for review from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other opinion addressed an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an announcement stating that the Clerk’s Office and Circuit Library will be temporarily unavailable for public services and support on April 26, 2024. Here is the text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both address pro se appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are their introductions.

As we have been reporting, earlier this month the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., in which the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a judge in the District of Colorado to grant Crocs’ motion for summary judgment on a Lanham Act claim. This is our argument recap.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a patent case raising a question at the intersection of infringement and claim construction, along with a denial of a petition in another patent case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Here are the details.