FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, moreover, no new petitions have been filed with the Court. As for pending petitions, though, four new reply briefs and two waivers of right to respond were filed. 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 Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update five new petitions were filed with the Court: one in a government contract case, one in a veterans case, two in takings cases, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two waivers of rights to respond were filed, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and three briefs in opposition to petitions addressing patent eligibility and preclusion were filed. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, one in a patent case and two in employment cases. The precedential patent opinion addresses eligibility. The two precedential employment opinions address the interpretation and application of 38 U.S.C. § 714, which governs the removal, demotion, or suspension of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or alleged misconduct. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in one of these employment cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, and that opinion addresses claim construction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for granted cases, we are still waiting for the Court to issue opinions in the two pending patent cases. As for petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising an Appointments Clause challenge; one respondent filed a brief in opposition to a petition raising questions related to an inmate’s right to assert patent infringement; the government submitted a waiver of its right to respond to a petition in a pro se case; and the Court requested a response to a petition raising questions related to preclusion. Additionally, four petitioners filed reply briefs in cases presenting questions related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction, the Appointments Clause, and retroactivity in agency adjudication.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
• Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
• Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
• Five new reply briefs were filed.
• One supplemental brief was filed.
• One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
• Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
• The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case that has been granted certiorari.
• The Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court in response to the petition in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• One new amicus brief was filed with the Court in Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. United States by Anthem, Inc., Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., Highmark Inc., L.A. Care Health Plan, and Molina Healthcare of California, Inc.
• Lastly, the Court denied the petitions in three cases.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition filed in a patent case raising questions related to intervention in inter partes review proceedings; a new response to a petition raising questions related to anticipation of patent claims; the denial of a petition raising questions related to claim preclusion; and the denial of a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. An amended petition was filed in a veterans case recently argued before the en banc court. As for pending en banc petitions in patent cases, highlights include new responses to petitions raising questions related to claim preclusion and sanctions; a new amicus brief filed in a case raising a question related to obviousness; and the denial of three petitions raising questions related to remedies, issue and claim preclusion, jurisdiction in inter partes review, and alleged due process and takings violations in inter partes review. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question related to patent claim construction and new invitations to respond to petitions in two cases raising questions related to claim preclusion and double patenting. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In NOVA v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a veterans case in which the en banc court will consider the court’s jurisdiction to review interpretive rules the Department of Veterans Affairs promulgates in its Adjudication Procedures Manual, three new amicus briefs were filed. Other highlights include new petitions in two patent cases raising questions related to venue and claim preclusion; a new response to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to jurisdiction; an invitation to respond to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.