FedCircuitBlog

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 veterans case; two reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a veterans case; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases, three veterans cases, a trade case, a Fair Labor Standards Act case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion, which drew a dissent from Judge Reyna, reverses and remands a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelling the registration of a trademark. One nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal from a Veteran’s Court decision, which is ultimately dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Another nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding a claim unpatentable as obvious. Finally, another nonprecedential opinion affirms a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders. Four dismiss appeals and one dismisses a petition for review. Here are links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from a denial of a preliminary injunction in a patent dispute. The other precedential opinion addresses a dispute over whether a certain fuel mixture may qualify as “alternative fuel” for tax credit purposes. The nonprecedential opinion affirms a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an 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 new briefing in a patent case and recent oral arguments in a trademark case, a veterans case, and a takings case. Here are the details.

Happy New Year! The Federal Circuit kicked off 2024 with the release of one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion addresses issues of standing and failure to state a claim in a government contract matter. The nonprecedential opinion addresses an appeal in a patent case in which a district court granted summary judgment of invalidity. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap. 

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. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a reply brief was filed in a case addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act. Here are the details.

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. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a brief in opposition was filed in a veterans case, a reply brief was filed in a trade case regarding separation of powers in imposing tariffs, and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case asking the Court to consider a question regarding patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. Judges Lourie, Chen, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.