FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 summary affirmances and two orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to judgments and orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene eight panels to consider 37 cases. Of these 37 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 28. Of these argued cases, two cases attracted amicus briefs, one an en banc case addressing federal benefits and another a government contract case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the District of Delaware to vacate an order setting an evidentiary hearing. The Federal Circuit also released two orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Adams v. United States, a federal benefits case. The arguments will address whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a case concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Today the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; one denies a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; and one grants a motion to dismiss an appeal. Here is text from the first two orders and a link to the third order.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight two new cases, one with an upcoming oral argument. Additionally, we highlight an opinion in a patent case, a patent case with a new brief, and argument recaps for three cases that were heard in October. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus that sought to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the Northern District of California. The other order dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order denying the petition, and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly interpreted the relevant statutes and that the lower court’s denial of review of state garnishment orders does not violate due process. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions from the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the appellant filed his en banc reply brief. As for petitions in patent cases, the court received a new petition raising a question related to anticipation and two responses to a petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related the standard for an award of attorneys’ fees, inter partes review estoppel, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.