FedCircuitBlog

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week in (1) Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Iancu, (2) Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and (3) Drevaleva v. United States.
• One new brief in opposition was filed with the Court by Taser in Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc.
• One new reply brief was filed with the Court by Sanofi-Aventis in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Lastly, one waiver of right to respond to the petition in Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. was filed with the Court by Dish Network.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases, one in a vaccine case, one in a veterans case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

• CBM Review: A Postmortem – The covered business method review, expiring on September 15th, has seen a rise and fall in popularity that can be attributed to the Federal Circuit.
• Oracle Loses JEDI Appeal – In Oracle America, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision to allow the Department of Defense to issue a $10 billion, 10-year cloud-computing contract to Microsoft.
• Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction over Constitutional Questions in AIA Appeals – Affirming the decision of the lower court in Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit confirmed its ability to decide factual issues when necessary to resolve a constitutional challenge.

Here’s the latest.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order granting panel rehearing to withdraw and replace a prior precedential opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, a patent case addressing joinder of parties and claims in inter partes review proceedings. The court subsequently issued a modified precedential opinion in the case, along with a separate order denying en banc rehearing in the same case. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming the dismissal of another case for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the orders.

Earlier this week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Albright v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. The court addressed the holding by the Court of Federal Claims “that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Linn heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions this week: (1) Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corp., (2) ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, and (3) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration.
• Nine briefs were filed in response to the petition in United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC.
• Three replies were submitted to the Court, the first by BioDelivery in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the second by Chamberlain in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., and the third by Campbell in Campbell v. United States.
• One supplemental brief was filed by Ameranth in Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC.
• Lastly, nine waivers of right to respond were submitted to the Court in three cases: (1) United States v. Image Processing Technologies LLC, (2) Sanders v. United States, and (3) Michelson v. Department of the Army.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a government contracts case and an international trade case. The court also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one dismissing a case for lack of jurisdiction and three in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a patent case, one in a tax case, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a veterans case and a government contracts case, as well as two nonprecedential opinions in a tax case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene eleven panels to consider about 51 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will continue to hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 28 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs, one a takings case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about those cases.