FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s 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 new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the court held in part that “the trial court properly applied the stabilization doctrine to this case and did not clearly err” in determining the timing of when the taking accrued. The court, however, vacated the trial court’s denial of crop damages and its finding that the government did not causally contribute to certain flooding and remanded the case. In addition, this morning the court also released an erratum. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the erratum.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential en banc opinion in a veterans case. In the opinion, the court held “that the claim-filing effective-date provisions of [38 U.S.C.] § 5110 are unconstitutional” as applied to the appellant based on his “very rare set of circumstances.” Notably, Judge Dyk filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Judge Hughes filed an opinion dissenting in part and dissenting from the judgment. In addition, late yesterday and this morning the court also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, three waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in a pro se and a veterans case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential, both in patent cases and both addressing obviousness. Additionally, the court released five nonprecedential orders, one transferring a case to another court, one summarily affirming a judgment, one granting a motion to remand a case, and two dismissing appeals. Additionally, the court released four summary affirmances and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals, summary affirmances, and the erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders, three transferring cases to other courts and two dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the transfers and one of the dismissals and a link to the other dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in City of Wilmington v. United States, a Clean Water Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of 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 opinion summary.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released eight nonprecedential orders: one summarily affirming a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims, two transferring cases to other circuit courts, one deactivating and dismissing appeals, and four dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted the petition for certiorari in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case raising a question related to the First Amendment. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, the Court requested a response to a petition raising a question concerning patent eligibility; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in a veterans case; and a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising a question concerning inter partes review estoppel. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinions, the court respectively vacated and remanded a judgment in a government contract case and reversed and affirmed in part in a patent case. Notably, Judge Newman dissented in the government contract case. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a pro se case. In the nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.