FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article describing how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is going all-in on generative artificial intelligence solutions to help improve its business operations”;
• a piece examining a recent precedential Federal Circuit holding that “inter partes review estoppel does not extend to arguments that the claimed invention is invalid because it was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]housands of disabled veterans could be eligible for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal officials had unfairly capped those payments.”

On June 12, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation and, as a result, “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reversed. According to the Court, “[t]he CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.” This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted petitions, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the last remaining case this term that had been decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed in patent cases. The Court also denied two petitions, one raising a question related to patents and one raising questions relating to government contracts. 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 petitions, there has been no new activity since our last post. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases; a new brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, the petitioner filed his reply brief in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a government contract case; a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a takings case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in the same takings case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and five 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 granted petitions, oral argument in Soto v. United States will take place later this month. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond to the petition in that patent case, along with a reply brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. 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 Supreme Court issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.