FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases 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. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and two pro se cases; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; and three briefs in opposition were filed, two in a patent case and one in a takings case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. All three come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, six nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other two come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Three of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals, two transfer cases to other courts, and the final order denies a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Here are introductions to the opinions and orders other than the dismissals, along with links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, seven nonprecedential orders, and four Rule 36 judgments. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and discusses the role of the doctrine of foreign equivalents in translating a mark in a foreign language. The other precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims, one of the other nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se appeal in a patent infringement case, and the last nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Five of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus, while the other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and five nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case appealed from the Western District of Texas, one comes in an appeal from the Court of International Trade, and the other comes in an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Protections Board, and the other two come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Three of the opinions come in patent cases. Judge Dyk dissented to one. The other two opinions come in pro se appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit received two letters in the court’s pending en banc case involving President Trump. In addition, two petitions for en banc review were filed in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 52 evidentiary trials and patent eligibility, and the court denied a petition in another patent case raising questions related to invalidity. Here are the details.