FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dixon v. United States, a case that concerns the application of the informal claim doctrine of a tax refund request. Dixon appeals a ruling of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the court erred in dismissing his claim based on subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Judges Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, the first addressing jurisdiction in a veteran’s case and the second addressing entitlement to attorneys’ fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion addressing entitlement to annuities by eligible survivors of U.S. military personnel. Finally, the court also dismissed a case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in Jenkins v. United States, a takings case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Jenkins is not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in trade and government contracts cases along with three nonprecedential opinions in patent and trade cases. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion transferring an appeal to the Second Circuit along with a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order and a link to the dismissal.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the by the Court of International Trade that the “President’s authority to modify a safeguard measure under 19 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) is limited solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ modifications, and that Proclamation 10101 thus went beyond the President’s statutory authority.” Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and four nonprecedential orders dismissing or summarily affirming dismissals of cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and an erratum. In the first opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the second, the court affirmed a judgment of the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. In the third, the court reversed a judgment of no invalidity in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. In the fourth, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the erratum.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential and two nonprecedential opinions along with three nonprecedential orders. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinions, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The three nonprecedential orders dismiss 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. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, most notably the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief expressing the view of the United States that the Court should grant review in two patent cases. No new petitions were filed, but the government waived its right to respond to two petitions and a party filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s amicus brief recommending the Court grant review in a patent case raising a question about so-called skinny labelling. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. In the first two precedential opinions, the court affirmed judgments of the Central District of California and District of Delaware in patent cases. In the third precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the District of Delaware in another patent case. In the fourth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded a judgment of the Northern District of Georgia in still another patent case. In the fifth precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.