FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders: one granting a motion to withdraw an appeal and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order and a link to the dismissal.

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, waivers of right to respond were filed in two pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and in two veterans cases; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases; and the Court denied certiorari in three patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims addressing the Clean Water Act. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one in a government contract case and one in a tax case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions, all in patent cases. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in patent cases, one affirming a judgment of unpatentability in an inter partes review and one reversing a judgment of unpatentability in another inter partes review. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case and five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explains why it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also released seven nonprecedential orders, six granting summary affirmances under Rule 36 and one dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and four orders dismissing appeals. The nonprecedential opinions affirm a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing a pro se case for lack of jurisdiction, a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming a dismissal by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmance and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case and four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order announcing that a majority of the judges in regular active service voted for sua sponte en banc consideration of a case involving an alleged violation of the Equal Pay Act. The court also released a precedential opinion in the same case, vacating a dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings. In Part II.B of the opinion, the en banc court overruled one of the court’s prior opinions, which the court explains “added an extra element to an EPA claimant’s prima facie case—namely, a showing that the pay differential ‘is either historically or presently based on sex.’” Here is the text of the order and the introduction to the opinion.