FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a trademark case. Additionally, the government filed two waivers of right to respond. The Court also requested responses to two pending petitions in patent cases. Lastly, the Court denied seven petitions. 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update five new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a government contract case, one in a veterans case, two in takings cases, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two waivers of rights to respond were filed, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and three briefs in opposition to petitions addressing patent eligibility and preclusion were filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Currently, with respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a taking case asking questions concerning choice of law, the government submitted a waiver of right to respond in a Tucker Act case, and respondents filed response briefs in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s 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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims rejecting takings claims based on a so-called “rails-to-trails” conversion. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is this month’s 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 patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two dispositions, three new cases that attracted amicus briefs, two recent oral arguments, and one upcoming oral argument.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Albright v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. The court addressed the holding by the Court of Federal Claims “that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Linn heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene eleven panels to consider about 51 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will continue to hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 28 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs, one a takings case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about those cases.

Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.