FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in a trade case and a patent case, a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order a district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents, and three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order denying the petition and links to the dismissals.

As we have been reporting this week, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. This is our argument preview.

Here is an 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 two recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a pro se case. 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, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a veterans case and one in a pro se case. Additionally a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a Tucker Act case and in a takings case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a “rails-to-trials” takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Late yesterday the Federal Circuit also dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Boyer v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment of a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. The appeal relates primarily to the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court incorrectly relied only on salary history to establish its affirmative defense. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the parties’ arguments. This is our argument recap. 

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of International Trade that “the statutory authority to ‘modify’ a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes” and that Proclamation 10101 exceeded the President’s authority. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that the “the President’s view that a ‘modification’ may include a change in a trade-restricting direction, and is not limited to trade-liberalizing changes, is not unreasonable.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that claims had not been shown to be unpatentable. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal asking whether a district court erred in its claim construction in a patent case. The majority found that the district court did not err, while Judge Stark dissented. The other nonprecedential opinion affirms a lower court’s decision to dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finally, the order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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 heard arguments last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases raising questions related to the Federal Circuit’s practice of reversing agency decisions and patent eligibility. Two waivers of right to respond were filed, one in the patent case raising the question about reversing agency decisions and one in a pro se case. A brief in opposition was filed in a patent case addressing the ability to review determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. An amicus brief was filed in a veterans case. And, finally, the Court denied a petition in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion, which attracted one amicus brief, addresses two issues in a case appealed from the Court of International Trade: the President’s authority to modify safeguard measures in a trade-restrictive manner and the appropriate procedures under the Trade Act for doing so. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.