FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of the two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that it is reviewing this term. With respect to petitions, the Supreme Court granted a petition in a veterans case, Bufkin v. McDonough. In addition, five new petitions were filed, four new briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, four new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one reply brief was filed. Finally, the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other precedential opinion affirms the Western District of Texas’s dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms the dismissal of a petition for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second nonprecedential opinion affirms two final decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a whistleblower case. The first nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal, while the other two nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ACLR, LLC v. United States, a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. The panel included Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stark. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion reverses a judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade concerning the scope of an antidumping duty order. Notably, Judge Chen dissented. The nonprecedential opinion affirms the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss in a patent case. The nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board, another dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the fourth affirms an anti-filing injunction entered by the District of Delaware in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders summarily affirming under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the third affirms the the Court of Federal Claims’s denial of a petition to review a Special Master’s dismissal of a claim under the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the fourth affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims concerning a veteran’s claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders affirming appeals under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 11 panels to consider 60 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 42. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

The Federal Circuit has been busy. This morning it released two precedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case and reverses in part final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion comes in a veterans case and affirms dismissal of veterans’ petitions for writs of mandamus. The nonprecedential orders do various things in various cases: deny a motion for permission to appeal, dismiss a petition for review, grant a motion to remand a trademark case back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, grant a motion to transfer a case, dismiss a petition for review as premature, grant a petition by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and grant a motion for summary affirmance. Late yesterday, the Feddral Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, other than the dismissal, which is only linked.

As we highlighted yesterday, two cases being argued in May at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is ACLR, LLC v. United States, a government contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. This is our argument preview.