FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a vaccine case, affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released five nonprecedential opinions, two in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from the Court of Federal Claims, and one from the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, two Rule 36 judgments, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

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, there were three waivers of right to respond to petitions, one in a pro se case, one in a patent case, and another in a government contracts case. There were also two new replies filed in support of petitions in patent cases. Finally, there were two denials of petitions filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the precedential opinions, one of the cases was a patent case appealed from a district court and the other was a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Both of the nonprecedential opinions come in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the en banc court issued an order granting an immediate administrative stay of judgments and permanent injunctions. As for the two pending en banc cases, the court will hear oral argument next week in one, a government contract case, and the court received an amicus brief in the other, which raises questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, since our last update the court received five new petitions, three in patent cases, one in a case raising questions related to statutory interpretation, and one in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition in a patent case raising a question related to collateral estoppel. The court also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders, one dismissing an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other dismissing an appeal from the District of Delaware. Here are links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of these 62 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 39 cases. As always, the Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s Youtube channel. This month, only one case scheduled for oral arguments attracted an amicus brief. That case is an en banc government contract case. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Next month only one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. That case is a government contract case, Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States. The Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing in this case to reconsider the issue of standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. This is our argument preview.