FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, an opening merits brief and an amicus brief were submitted in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. Five new petitions were filed, one in a personnel case and four related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed, one in response to a petition raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and two in response to a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. Finally, a reply in support of a petition was filed in a case addressing hazardous duty pay for federal employees. 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, five amicus briefs were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case addressing the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. With respect to petition cases, a brief in opposition was filed in an employment case and the government waived its right to respond 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. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, an amicus brief in support of a petition was filed in an employment case, and the Court denied certiorari in a veterans case and a patent 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, the Supreme Court issued its opinion yesterday in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, one in a trade case, one in an employment case, and three in pro se cases. Three briefs in opposition were filed, two in veterans cases and one in a patent case. Two waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case. And, finally, four petitions were denied, three in patent cases and in one pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released four nonprecedential orders: one summarily affirming a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one summarily affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, one transferring a veteran’s case to the Western District of Texas, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinions, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board and vacated in part and affirmed in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to order transfer in a patent case and granted a motion to dismiss an appeal in another patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Adams v. United States, an employment case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between COVID-19 and Hazardous Duty Pay (HDP) and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) regulations, and in particular whether prison guards who come into contact with COVID-19 through either human to human contact or human contaminated mediums are entitled to EDP or HDP. Last week, the court issued a majority opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, which held that OPM’s regulations do not provide for HDP and EDP for working with or in proximity to individuals infected with COVID-19. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges dissented, however, arguing for reversal. Here is our summary of these opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in an employment case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The en banc court held that the Office of Personnel Management to date has not adopted regulations that provide for differential pay based on COVID-19 in various workplace settings. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented in an opinion joined by Judge Newman. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order transferring a case to the Ninth Circuit and another nonprecedential order dismissing two appeals. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Adams v. United States. In this case, the court is considering whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument recap.