FedCircuitBlog

This week, and as it turns out, next Monday, is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 70 cases. Of the 70 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuits YouTube channel. This month, four cases schedules for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we’ve been reporting, four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Christensen v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.

One of the four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March that attracted amicus briefs is Bruyea v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, which allowed an American citizen residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit released its opinion earlier this month in In re United States, a companion case to another case also styled In re United States, decided the same day in a separate opinion. This trade case attracted four amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit considered the International Trade Commission’s appeal from a denial by the Court of International Trade of a motion. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the panel dismissed the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in In re United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a petition by the International Trade Commission for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of International Trade to retain the confidentiality of questionnaire responses and to permit the Commission to continue its practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit affirmed the order of the CIT. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case addressing eligibility on appeal from a district court. Of the denials of petitions, three relate to petitions seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate non-institution decisions on petitions for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, and the key claim at issue in the dispute was a means-plus-function limitation. One of the nonprecedential opinions also comes in another patent infringement case; the other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are 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. Since our last update, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bee v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appeals the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. Judges Reyna, Clevenger, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.