FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three opinions: a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; a precedential opinion in an international trade case; and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last report, however, ten new petitions have been filed in patent, government contract, veterans, and pro se cases; briefs in opposition have been filed in three patent and veterans cases; replies in support of petitions have been filed in three patent cases; the Court requested a response to a petition in a patent case; and the Court denied petitions in three patent, trademark, and pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, a nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinions come in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims and a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The nonprecedential orders dismiss petitions for writs of mandamus, one seeking to order transfer in a patent case and the other in an apparent pro se case pending at the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion reversing and remanding a patent case back to the Court of Federal Claims. Judge Hughes filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. The court also released an order dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court still has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Two new petitions, however, were filed with the Court: one in a trade case and one in a takings case. As for previously filed petitions, one brief in opposition and three reply briefs were filed with the Court in patent, Tucker Act, and takings cases. Additionally, the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a pro se patent case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued five nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. And the fifth comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of North Carolina. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The second comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a writ of mandamus, and a writ of quo warranto. Finally, the court issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Last Friday, the court heard oral argument in Brown v. United States, a tax case. We have been following it because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the Browns ask the Federal Circuit to overrule the holding of the Court of Federal Claims that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the Browns did not attach a power of attorney to amended income tax returns filed by their agent with the Internal Revenue Service. The United States argues “[t]he Browns’ refund claims admittedly violated the taxpayer signature and verification requirements,” and the United States maintains this means “the Browns’ refund claims were not ‘duly filed’ with the IRS before the Browns sued.” The arguments attracted an amicus brief from the Center of Taxpayer Rights in support of the Browns. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll heard Friday’s 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 the Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, the Court has not granted any petitions in cases decided by the Federal Circuit since our last update. One new petition, however, was filed with the Court in a case involving an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. As for previously filed petitions, one amicus brief, three briefs in opposition, and one reply were filed with the Court in employment, trademark, patent, and takings cases. Additionally, the government filed a waiver of right to respond in a pro se case. Finally, the Court denied three petitions in Tucker Act, patent, and pro se cases. Here are the details.

This past Tuesday, the court heard oral argument in Monroe v. United States, an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. We have been following this Equal Access to Justice Act case because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, the United States asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterizes as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses to the plaintiff-appellee. Monroe contends he “prevailed at each procedural stage of the litigation” and, as result, “a fully compensatory fee award was warranted.” The arguments regarding the award of fees and expenses in an EAJA action attracted an amicus brief in support of Monroe. Judges Moore and Chen heard Tuesday’s argument. Judge Clevenger was assigned to this panel, but he was not present for the argument. This is our argument recap.