FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; and the Court denied nine petitions. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed, both in pro se cases; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases and a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed a brief in opposition in a veterans case; three petitioners filed reply briefs in three takings cases; two amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case and one amicus brief was filed in a patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and, finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a judicial disqualification case and two in 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. Last Friday, the Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case regarding the enablement requirement. In addition, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases; and the Court denied two petitions: one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Notably, Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting from the decision to deny review in the veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which had dismissed an appeal as moot. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential orders this morning and late yesterday. One dismisses a petition for review for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus for untimely filing; one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case; one summarily affirms; and one grants a petition to withdraw a petition for writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.

The Federal Circuit issued nine opinions and orders this morning:

• The court issued a precedential opinion in a veterans law case, affirming the upholding of a denial of an earlier effecting date for a service-connected disability over a dissent by Judge Newman.
• The court issued two orders and a precedential opinion in another veterans law case on remand from the Supreme Court. The first order granted panel rehearing, the panel withdrew and replaced its original opinion with a new precedential opinion, and the second order denied rehearing en banc. The new panel opinion declined to apply Auer deference to a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation and affirmed a decision of the Veterans Court, which in turn had affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for a service-connected disability. Judge Reyna dissented. Notably, the order denying rehearing en banc elicited five separate concurring and dissenting opinions.
• The court issued a related nonprecedential order and precedential opinion in a trade case. The order unsealed the opinion, which affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to affirm the Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty order covering carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
• The court issued two nonprecedential opinions affirming the Court of Federal Claims in two government contract appeals involving the same parties.
• The court issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance in case appealed from the Northern District of California.

Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.