FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 14 panels to consider 77 cases. Of these 77 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 51. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules go into effect today. As part of implementing various changes, the court updated its rules, forms, guides, and fee schedule. Here is the text of today’s announcement and links to various related documents.

As we have been reporting this week, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders on its website. One transfers a case to the Western District of Texas, while the other four dismiss appeals. Here are links to the orders.

As we mentioned yesterday, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejecting Chestek’s trademark application. The Board based on its judgment on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. This is our argument preview.

This morning, like yesterday, the Federal Circuit released only a single order, and again like yesterday it was a dismissal. We still have not seen any new opinions since last Wednesday. Here is a link to today’s dismissal.

Three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Beaudette v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. This is our argument preview.

For the first time since last Wednesday, the Federal Circuit released an order (albeit still no opinions) this morning on its website. It is a dismissal. Here is a link to it.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a veterans case and one in a pro se case. Additionally a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a Tucker Act case and in a takings case. Here are the details.