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.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Stupp Corporation v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of International Trade that we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the use of a statistical test by the Department of Commerce was reasonable. Judge Stark authored the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Court of International Trade. Judges Lourie and Bryson joined Judge Stark’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and nine nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, five come in patent cases, three come in cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was appealed from the District of Oregon in a case raising Quiet Title Act and inverse condemnation claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. Here are the details.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Marmen Inc. v. United States, a case we’ve been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Marmen appealed a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final determination by the Department of Commerce of a 4.94% dumping margin for utility-scale wind towers from Canada. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in an en banc government contract case. The Federal Circuit also received two amicus briefs and the government’s reply brief in President Trump’s pending case involving tariffs, in which the en banc court granted an immediate administrative stay of the judgments and permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade. As for petitions, the court received an amicus brief in a case with a petition raising questions related to interpretation of the statute defining the power of the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The first nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of an arbitrator in a case in which a former employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs challenged her 90-day suspension and requirements she agree to random drug testing and the release of her medical records. The second nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.