FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and scheduled oral argument. Judges Moore, Prost, and Taranto heard the argument, and this is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 50 cases this week. Of these 50 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 40. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a pro se vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal. Moreover, despite the fact that the petitioner is representing herself, the Federal Circuit has set the case for an oral argument. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second opinions come in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and involve issues related to the Vaccine Act and jurisdiction, respectively. The third opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders late yesterday and this morning. One transfers an appeal to the Northern District of Illinois, and the other dismisses an appeal. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Wisconsin. In it, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remands the case. The second precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the denial of a request for benefits. Notably, Judge Reyna filed a concurring opinion. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a precedential order in a Vaccine Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In its order, the Federal Circuit identifies certain issues raised in the appeal to be addressed in new briefings. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas; and the third comes in a vaccine case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, in the third case, Judge Bryson dissented. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Minnesota addressing numerous issues concerning validity and infringement. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential opinions in patent, tax, and employment cases. Notably, in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Finally, the court issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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, which began this week, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, however, two new petitions have been filed with the Court: one in a veterans case and one filed by a pro se petitioner. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and two waivers of right to respond were filed. Finally, the Court denied 22 petitions following its first conference of the new term. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last week the Supreme Court completed its October 2020 term, with all cases from the term decided. As for the Court’s October 2021 term, currently the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. That said, many petitions are still pending. And, you may recall, the Court previously requested the views of the Solicitor General in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility. We are still waiting for the government’s brief in that case. And since our last update, one new petition was filed in a patent case, two respondents submitted waivers of right to respond in a patent case and a pro se case, and a petitioner filed a reply brief in a vaccine case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The last week has been a busy one. As for granted cases, this week the Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc., agreeing with the Federal Circuit that the America Invents Act created an Appointments Clause violation with respect to the appointment and supervision of Administrative Patent Judges in inter partes review proceedings. As for petition cases:

• three new petitions were filed in patent law, Tucker Act, and pro se cases;
• two respondents filed briefs in opposition in vaccine and government contract cases;
• a respondent filed a brief in support of a petition in a patent case;
• a reply brief was submitted in supported of a petition in a patent case;
• the government filed waivers of right to respond in a tax case and a pro se case;
• a petitioner in a patent case filed a motion to dismiss; and
• the Court dismissed thirteen petitions.

Here are the details.