FedCircuitBlog

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 This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances.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 Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a takings case, one in a veterans case, and the other is on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board.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This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, eight nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance.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 The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases and one pro se case. Of the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for summary judgment; three transfer cases; and four dismiss appeals.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.

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.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument 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 is considering 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.” This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation will take place on December 9. Since our last update, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two new briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and a veterans case, and seven amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases and a veterans case. In addition, the Court denied the petition in a patent case raising questions related to Judge Newman’s removal from hearing appeals, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), and eligibility. Here are the details.

On December 9, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. 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.” The Federal Circuit held that, “[b]ecause Mr. Feliciano’s service does not qualify as an active duty contingency operation, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a), the Board properly denied differential pay.” This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed. One comes in a patent case raising questions related to summary judgment and Rule 36 summary affirmances. The other comes in a pro se case. Finally, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising a question related to the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility. Here are the details.