FedCircuitBlog

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, nine nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 judgments.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 The nonprecedential opinions come in various patent, veterans, and federal personnel cases.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.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 15 panels to consider 71 cases. Of the 71 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 56 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we’ve been mentioning, next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. On Wednesday, a panel will consider Farrington v. Department of Transportation, a case that attracted one amicus brief. In this case, Farrington challenges the Merit Systems Protection Board’s determination that she was not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 new opinion in a patent case raising a question related to what prior art may be considered during an inter partes review proceeding; four recent oral arguments in two trade and two takings cases; four new cases, including a federal personnel case, a government contract case, a trademark case, and a trade case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the summary affirmance.