FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in an antidumping duty investigation. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, an amicus brief was filed in support of respondent in Vidal v. Elster. With respect to petitions, two new petitions in two pro se cases were filed with the Court. Additionally, the government waived its right to respond to petitions in an employment case and in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eight panels to consider 41 cases. Of these 41 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, an amicus brief was filed in support of petitioner in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in a veterans case, a patent case, and a pro se case. Additionally, two reply briefs were filed in two different cases, one concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and one concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Two cases being argued in September at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Darby Development Co. v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion to dismiss physical takings and illegal exaction claims related to the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. One dismissal was agreed upon by the parties. The remaining two dismissals were ordered for failure to pay docketing fees. The court did not release any orders or opinions this morning on its website. Here are links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, ten amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioner in Rudisill v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a patent case, one in a veterans case, and one in a pro se case. Additionally, two amicus briefs were filed in a Tucker Act case and a waiver of right to respond was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Today, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. The opinion discusses why the court affirmed the invalidation of numerous claims of three patents for obviousness. The court also released a summary affirmance under Federal Circuit Rule 36 and a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the summary affirmance and dismissal.

Today, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential orders: two order the transfer of cases to a district court, two grant motions for remand, one denies a motion to transfer to a district court, and one grants unopposed motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the orders 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, an opening merits brief and an amicus brief were submitted in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. Five new petitions were filed, one in a personnel case and four related to the same pro se case. Additionally, three briefs in opposition were filed, one in response to a petition raising a question related to the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and two in response to a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. Finally, a reply in support of a petition was filed in a case addressing hazardous duty pay for federal employees. Here are the details.