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 petitions, a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and five pro se cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a veterans case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in ten cases. 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 has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, there has been a lot of activity:

• eight new petitions were filed, one in a patent case and seven in pro se cases;
• nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases, a veterans case, an MSPB case, a government contracts case, and pro se cases;
• fourt briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and government contracts case;
• three reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in the same Quiet Title Act case, a trademark case, and the same government contracts case;
• sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases;
• supplemental briefs were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and
• the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases, a takings case, a case addressing jurisdiction and a pro se case.

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.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dinh v. United States, a case we have been monitoring because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. The Court of Federal Claims held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. The Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas), affirmed. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an 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 two new opinions, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two nonprecedential orders in patent cases appealed from the Western District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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 three new opinions, one in a case related to the rulemaking authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs, another in a takings case related to water rights, and another related to patents alleged to be improperly listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. We also highlight five new cases, two related to trade agreements, two related to takings claims, and one patent case. Finally, we note new briefing in a patent case we have been tracking. Here are the details.

This week (and next Monday) is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court originally scheduled 12 panels to hear 72 cases, with the plan to hear oral argument in 45 cases. Given the National Day of Mourning for President Carter, however, the court last week announced that it would not open on Thursday, canceling two panels. As always, the court provides access to live audio of its arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Four cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Dinh v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that, because Congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. This is our argument preview.