FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and five Rule 36 summary affirmances. The nonprecedential opinion addresses a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Late Friday, the Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissal and summary affirmances.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgments, and erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, affirming the Board’s decision to dismiss a petition for enforcement of a settlement agreement. Notably, Judge Chen dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus based on alleged lack of jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

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 an opinion in a tax case addressing subject matter jurisdiction and “duly filed” requirements, a new patent case about prosecution laches that attracted an amicus brief, and an upcoming oral argument in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a military discharge case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Court also issued five nonprecedential opinions in various cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

On January 5 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Brown v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll. The Browns appealed a dismissal by the United States Court of Federal Claims of a tax refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Lourie authored the opinion in the case, affirming the dismissal. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion comes in a case addressing whether a petitioner could recover for injuries occurring after a vaccination. The second opinion comes in a tax refund suit and addresses the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the timeliness of the suit. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Last Friday, the court heard oral argument in Brown v. United States, a tax case. We have been following it because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the Browns ask the Federal Circuit to overrule the holding of the Court of Federal Claims that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Browns did not attach a power of attorney to amended income tax returns filed by their agent with the Internal Revenue Service. The United States argues “[t]he Browns’ refund claims admittedly violated the taxpayer signature and verification requirements,” and the United States maintains this means “the Browns’ refund claims were not ‘duly filed’ with the IRS before the Browns sued.” The arguments attracted an amicus brief from the Center of Taxpayer Rights in support of the Browns. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll heard Friday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. Arguments are being held in person absent granted motions for leave to appear remotely, and the Federal Circuit is also providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 14 panels to consider about 59 cases. Of these 59 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 52. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Access to Justice Act case, a trademark case, and a tax case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a tax case, Brown v. United States. In this case, George P. Brown and Ruth Hunt-Brown ask the Federal Circuit to overrule the holding of the Court of Federal Claims that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over their case because the Browns did not attach a power of attorney to amended income tax returns filed by their agent. This is our argument preview.