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Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, nine nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 judgments.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 The nonprecedential opinions come in various patent, veterans, and federal personnel cases.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

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in six patent cases, one takings case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the two cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit, merits briefs and amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one new amicus brief was filed. Here are the details.