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, while no new petitions were filed with the Court, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case, and a reply in support of a petition was filed in a takings case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One vacates a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based on the absence of a live controversy; one summarily affirms a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims; and one dismisses an appeal from a federal district court for failure to prosecute. Here is text from the orders and a link to the dismissal.

Three cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases attracted four amicus briefs. That case is Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States. It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appeals the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appeals. This is our argument preview.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted two amicus briefs. That case is Behrens v. United States, which concerns a claim the federal government was liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the government filed its en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in December. The court also invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to the process and standard for determining indefiniteness. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; one dismisses an appeal for failure to prosecute; and one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Here is the text from the order and links to the dismissals.  

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 takings case, two patent cases with new briefing, one patent case in which one of three appellants voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and three cases (two takings cases and one government contracts case) with upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. In its opinion addressing patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two patents and reverses the district’s court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two different patents. Notably, Judge Hughes dissented in part. The second opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms a decision that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links 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, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the California Institute of Technology waived its right to respond in a patent case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a takings case; three amicus brief were filed, two in a patent case and one in a case concerning judicial disqualification; and, finally, the Court denied a petition in a challenge to a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.