FedCircuitBlog

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

• After receiving three petitions last week, the Supreme Court received yet another petition from Lakshmi Arunachalam in Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. SAP America, Inc.
• In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the petitioner submitted its reply to the Court, denouncing the claims made by the respondent and further advocating for their writ to be granted.
• Finally, the Supreme Court denied a total of eight different petitions this week, among that group of denied petitions are cases like Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp. and Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission. For the full list of denied petitions, see the list below.

Here are the details.

• New Suits Against Amazon Barred Under Claim Preclusion – Relying on a 1907 decision, the Federal Circuit bars suits against Amazon’s customers.
• Supreme Court Will Not Hear Eli Lilly Patent Appeal – This week, the Supreme Court denied two petitions both relating to a chemotherapy treatment for lung cancer.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Dumping Duties – Chinese solar cell companies were kept accountable for dumping thanks to a recent Federal Circuit ruling.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
• ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
• Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.

Here’s the latest.

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

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Caquelin v. United States, the court considered a takings claim. As we noted in our argument preview, one of the two issues presented to the court was whether a notice of interim trail use (NITU) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Last Thursday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel that included Judges Prost, Linn, and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a Vaccine Act case, one precedential opinion in a governments contract case, and one precedential opinion in a Takings Clause case. The court also issued one nonprecedential opinion in a tax case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and three nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court issued seven Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text of the orders, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential opinion in a Merit Systems Protection Board case, a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case, and six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There is no news to report on granted cases. Five new petitions, however, were filed. The Supreme Court also denied one petition, Harris v. United States, this week. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential opinions in Merit Systems Protection Board cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and two Rule 36 judgments. Continue reading for introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Another case that will be argued next week is Caquelin v. United States, which attracted three amicus briefs. The Federal Circuit will be asked to address two questions related to takings law. First, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that a notice of interim trail use (“NITU”) “amounted to a government-authorized physical occupation of the underlying property for purposes of [a] takings analysis.” Second, the court will consider whether the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding a taking under the “multifactor analysis of Arkansas Game [and Fish Comm’n v. United States].” Here is our preview of the arguments that will be presented to the court.