FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a case addressing jurisdiction, a veterans case, and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in the case addressing jurisdiction; a brief in opposition was filed in a trademark case; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and two amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case. Finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a patent case, one in a trademark case, and on in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Also, since our last update, four new petitions have been filed in takings, patent, and pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a trademark case and a pro se patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 and its application of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent Supreme Court activity in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The only case pending at the Supreme Court decided by the Federal Circuit is Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. Since our last update, thirty two amicus briefs have been filed in this case. The case is set to be argued on Wednesday. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition has been filed in a patent case, and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. With respect to petitions, four new petitions have been filed. Two petitions present questions related to Federal Circuit Rule 36, while two were filed in pro se cases. In addition, three new briefs in opposition and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, nine nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinions come in a patent case and a case involving a claim under the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976. The nonprecedential opinions come in various patent, veterans, and federal personnel cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, as we noted last week the Supreme Court recently held held oral argument in one case decided by the Federal Circuit and issued an opinion in another. With respect to pending petitions, the Court granted two petitions, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases in light of the Court’s holding in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Also, a new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the ability of a court of appeals to revive a waived argument; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility and Federal Circuit Rule 36; and a brief in opposition was filed in yet another patent case raising questions concerning so-called skinny labels. Finally, the Court denied two petitions, one raising questions related to ripeness of takings claims and the other raising a question related to the on-sale bar to patentability. Here are the details.

On April 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that a “federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to ‘any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency’ is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that his service was substantively connected in some particular way to some particular emergency.” Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.

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 patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Farrington v. Department of Transportation, an employment law case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. There, the Board determined that Farrington was not subject to whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released an errata. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in Tucker Act case and the other comes in a patent case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a takings case, one in a veterans case, and the other is on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and errata.