FedCircuitBlog

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

This post summarizes the recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Chamberlain Group filed a new petition in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al.
• In Baley v. United States, the United States and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations both filed briefs in opposition.
• In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Celgene Corp. submitted its reply to the petition of certiorari.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Parties filed new petitions in two cases. Several amici filed amicus briefs in Baley v. United States.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the Court postponed one oral argument. In petitions cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to retroactive application of inter partes review and waiver with respect to an Appointments Clause challenge. Two responses in opposition to petitions were filed in patent cases raising questions related to the written description requirement and standing to appeal in inter partes review proceedings. There was one new reply brief filed in a veterans case concerning attorneys fees. And several amicus briefs were filed in three cases. 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 activity to report this week. With respect to petitions cases, new petitions were filed in five cases, two amicus briefs were filed in another case, and the Court denied a petition. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s modification to its April oral argument schedule given the coronavirus pandemic, a note on the denial of a request by the Electronic Frontier Fountain for the Federal Circuit to broadcast an upcoming hearing, and a press release announcing a Supreme Court petition challenging the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of a Court of Claims decision rejecting a takings challenge to the re-allocation of irrigation water rights by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a case involving the United States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the Klamath River Basin reclamation project. Here is the introduction to the opinion.