FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court vacated and remanded a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in an appeal from the District of Delaware. In two nonprecedential orders, the Federal Circuit denied petitions in cases originating in the Western District of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. The three additional nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and links to the dismissals.

This morning the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to the dismissals.

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in Behrens v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In the case, the Behrens appealed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the Behrens were not entitled to compensation because the scope of an easement was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims and remanded the case. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions.  In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the the Court of Federal Claims. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed another judgment in an appeal from the Middle District of Florida.  Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion in PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, an international trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appealed a determination by the Court of International Trade that the President exceeded his authority by issuing a proclamation outside a statutory time limitation. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Court of International Trade. This is our opinion summary.

This morning and late yesterday the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three orders dismissing appeals. In the precedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In the first nonprecedential opinion, the court affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from Southern District of Texas that was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In the second nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions.  In the first, the court affirmed a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the second, the Federal Circuit dismissed a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The en banc court issued a long-awaited opinion last week in an employment case addressing the question of whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to claim construction and denied a petition in a case raising a question related to the terms of a protective order. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit decided Adams v. United States, an employment case we have been following since the court scheduled an en banc hearing. The case presents the question of the relationship between COVID-19 and Hazardous Duty Pay (HDP) and Environmental Differential Pay (EDP) regulations, and in particular whether prison guards who come into contact with COVID-19 through either human to human contact or human contaminated mediums are entitled to EDP or HDP. Last week, the court issued a majority opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, which held that OPM’s regulations do not provide for HDP and EDP for working with or in proximity to individuals infected with COVID-19. According to the Federal Circuit, these veterans are entitled to a maximum of 36 months of benefits. Two judges dissented, however, arguing for reversal. Here is our summary of these opinions.