FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; a brief in opposition was filed by the government in response to petitions in three takings cases; and a reply brief was filed in a case concerning judicial disqualification. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s decision that specific claims are unpatentable, reversed the Board’s construction of the phrase “used for electrical interconnection,” and remanded the case. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and one transfers an appeal to the District of Maryland.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s final written decisions determining that some but not all of the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, two nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. The first order summarily affirms, and the second grants an unopposed motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the order granting dismissal and the Rule 36 judgment.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a case that concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appealed the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appealed. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction order. The second comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s removal of an employee of the Department of Defense. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first and second come in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment and two nonprecedential orders. One of these orders summarily affirms, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the summary affirmance, and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Behrens v. United States, which involves a claim that the federal government is liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. In this case, the Behrens appealed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential order granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Western District of Texas to vacate a scheduling order and postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration of a motion for transfer. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting similar relief. Notably, each order granted a petition filed by Apple Inc. The Federal Circuit also today released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in a military case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the orders, and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in another pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a case concerning judicial disqualification; three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a veterans case and another in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received responses to petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. The court also denied a petition filed by a pro se party. Here are the details.