FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, earlier this month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, and we have since posted our argument recap. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; waivers of the right to respond were filed in two patent cases, a case addressing Rule 36, and two pro se cases; briefs in opposition were filed in two patent cases; replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case, a case addressing Rule 36, a veterans case, and a case addressing procedure; and six amicus briefs were filed in a case addressing Rule 36. In addition, the Court denied the petition in the case addressing procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on 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, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising a question under the Administrative Procedure Act relating to inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other petition comes in a pro se case. The Court also received a new brief in opposition in a case concerning appellate procedure, an amicus brief in a patent case, and waivers of the right to respond in two other patent cases. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in three patent cases and one pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion affirms a sua sponte order of the District of Delaware ordering a witness to appear in person for testimony regarding potential fraud on the court. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms in part and dismisses in part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The second affirms a judgment of the District of Utah in a patent infringement case, while the third affirms a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in a related case based on collateral estoppel. The fourth affirms a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the order and Rule 36 judgment.