Supreme Court Activity

Recent Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

  • The Court invited the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, a patent case presenting questions related to eligibility.
  • Five new petitions were filed in patent, veterans, Tucker Act, and trademark cases.
  • Seventeen new briefs in opposition were filed in sixteen cases.
  • Five new reply briefs were filed.
  • One supplemental brief was filed.
  • One amicus brief was filed in a patent case.
  • Five waivers of right to respond were submitted.
  • The Court denied eight petitions.

Here are the details.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 17, 2021

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion affirming the United States Court of Federal Claims in a Tucker Act case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 14, 2021

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one reviewing a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other reviewing a decision of the Court of International Trade; two nonprecedential opinions, one reviewing another decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the other in a patent case; a nonprecedential order in Oracle America, Inc. v. Oracle LLC, on remand from the Supreme Court; and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 10, 2021

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions in three patent cases, a trademark case, a veterans case, and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent case. And the court released five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and a list of the summary affirmances.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 7, 2021

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se patent cases, and a nonprecedential opinion in a taking cases. The court also issued an erratum and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the erratum and summary affirmance.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – May 3, 2021

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a pro se tax dispute decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Over a dissent by Judge Newman, the court affirmed both a dismissal of the case and a denial of a motion for leave to amend the underlying complaint. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 30, 2021

The Federal Circuit issued nine opinions and orders this morning:

  • The court issued a precedential opinion in a veterans law case, affirming the upholding of a denial of an earlier effecting date for a service-connected disability over a dissent by Judge Newman.
  • The court issued two orders and a precedential opinion in another veterans law case on remand from the Supreme Court. The first order granted panel rehearing, the panel withdrew and replaced its original opinion with a new precedential opinion, and the second order denied rehearing en banc. The new panel opinion declined to apply Auer deference to a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation and affirmed a decision of the Veterans Court, which in turn had affirmed a decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying an earlier effective date for a service-connected disability. Judge Reyna dissented. Notably, the order denying rehearing en banc elicited five separate concurring and dissenting opinions.
  • The court issued a related nonprecedential order and precedential opinion in a trade case. The order unsealed the opinion, which affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision to affirm the Department of Commerce’s antidumping duty order covering carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.
  • The court issued two nonprecedential opinions affirming the Court of Federal Claims in two government contract appeals involving the same parties.
  • The court issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance in case appealed from the Northern District of California.

Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 26, 2021

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case affirming the Court of International Trade’s determination of duty-free treatment of the active ingredient in a medication for the treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case affirming a dismissal for lack of eligibility, a nonprecedential order unsealing the trade opinion, and an erratum. Here are are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and link to the erratum.

Read More
En Banc Activity

Recent En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received two new petitions for rehearing en banc: one in a patent case raising a question related to the doctrine of equivalents, and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Read More
Opinions

Opinions & Orders – April 20, 2021

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a takings case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and another dismissing an appeal for lack of constitutional standing. The court also issued a nonprecedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the Western District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement case. Notably, this order marked the second grant of mandamus against the Western District of Texas in the same case. The first grant of mandamus required the Western District of Texas to rule on a long-pending motion to transfer, while this second grant of mandamus requires the Western District of Texas to transfer the case.

Read More