FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. As for today’s orders: one grants a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering transfer from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, while the other dismisses an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinion and mandamus order, as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four opinions: one in a patent case addressing obviousness, one in a case addressing veterans law, and two addressing bilateral tax treaties. We also identify two new patent cases, both raising questions of claim construction. We also highlight one response brief in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to copyright law and inter partes review proceedings; and five new amicus briefs in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to takings under state law and inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 11 panels to consider 66 cases. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 42. Notably, as we have reported, the Federal Circuit will hold panel hearings both in Chicago as well as Washington DC. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one precedential order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case, four nonprecedential orders dismissing three appeals and a petition, and one nonprecedential order remanding a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The nonprecedential opinion also comes in a case appealed from the District of Delaware involving breach of contract and tortious interference claims. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the en banc order as well as links to the dismissals and remand.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a case raising a question related to appellate procedure and a pro se case; four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in four pro se cases; two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one reply brief in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one supplemental brief was filed in a pro se case; and one amicus brief was filed in another patent case raising questions related to eligibility. Here are the details.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted an amicus brief, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. United States. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority $633,150.90 for unpaid sewer charges. In the appeal, the United States presents questions related to statutory interpretation and contractual equitable defenses. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One opinion comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The other opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Today’s order dismisses a petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in three patent cases, a case presenting questions related to copyright and government contract law, and a pro se case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a government contract case; and six amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Barron v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Barron appeals the dismissal of her takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. This appeal presents questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Christensen v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Like the case we discussed yesterday, in this case the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment.