FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss in a patent case. The nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case involving an application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Two of the nonprecedential opinions affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board, another dismisses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the fourth affirms an anti-filing injunction entered by the District of Delaware in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders summarily affirming under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms a judgment in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the second dismisses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the third affirms the the Court of Federal Claims’s denial of a petition to review a Special Master’s dismissal of a claim under the Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and the fourth affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims concerning a veteran’s claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders affirming appeals under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 11 panels to consider 60 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 42. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

The Federal Circuit has been busy. This morning it released two precedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case and reverses in part final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion comes in a veterans case and affirms dismissal of veterans’ petitions for writs of mandamus. The nonprecedential orders do various things in various cases: deny a motion for permission to appeal, dismiss a petition for review, grant a motion to remand a trademark case back to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, grant a motion to transfer a case, dismiss a petition for review as premature, grant a petition by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for review of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and grant a motion for summary affirmance. Late yesterday, the Feddral Circuit also released another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, other than the dismissal, which is only linked.

As we highlighted yesterday, two cases being argued in May at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is ACLR, LLC v. United States, a government contract case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. This is our argument preview.

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 three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented in part. The court also released two other nonprecedential opinions, one in another case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction and one in an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion comes in a case brought under the Indian Tucker Act and involving several claims related to water rights and water-related infrastructure, including breach of trust, breach of contract, and takings claims. The panel affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which had held in favor of the United States on all of the plaintiff-appellant’s claims. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and Judge Reyna’s opinion.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Boyer v. United States, an Equal Pay Act case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment rejecting a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. In an opinion by Judge Dyk joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed. The court found that “the EPA applies equally to the United States as to other employers and that mere reliance on prior compensation standing alone is not an affirmative defense to a prima facie case under the EPA, unless the employer can demonstrate that the prior pay itself was not based on sex.”