FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion and three Rule 36 judgments. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the opinions, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California; affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims; affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board; affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and affirmed another judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Two of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals and one is an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgment, and erratum.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and three Rule 36 judgments. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and affirmed a judgment in a copyright case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the copyright case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit respectively affirmed a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims and affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit respectively transferred an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

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, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; two parties and the government waived their right to respond in a patent case and two pro se cases; the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief expressing the views of the United States in a patent case; four amicus brief were filed in a veterans case; and the Court denied certiorari in a Merit Systems Protection Board case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas in a patent case. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit dismissed a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, and affirmed a judgment of the Merits Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. In the first opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington. Notably, Judge Clevenger dissented. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene twelve panels to consider 52 cases this week. Of these 52 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 35. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, five cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these five cases.

Again, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jenkins v. United States, a takings case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jenkins was not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. This is our argument preview.

One of the five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief is Dixon v. United States, a tax case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Dixon’s “assessed additional income tax claim” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, five cases being argued in April at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of WIlmington, Delaware v. United States, a contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument preview.