FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update five amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in a patent case were filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a trade case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in a patent case was filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a takings case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and two pro se cases; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; and three briefs in opposition were filed, two in a patent case and one in a takings case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, there has been a lot of activity:

• eight new petitions were filed, one in a patent case and seven in pro se cases;
• nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases, a veterans case, an MSPB case, a government contracts case, and pro se cases;
• fourt briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and government contracts case;
• three reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in the same Quiet Title Act case, a trademark case, and the same government contracts case;
• sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases;
• supplemental briefs were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and
• the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases, a takings case, a case addressing jurisdiction and a pro se case.

Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Also, since our last update, four new petitions have been filed in takings, patent, and pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a trademark case and a pro se patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 and its application of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court heard oral argument in the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs, and the court denied three petitions for en banc review, two in patent cases and one in a takings case. Notably, in the denial in one of the patent cases, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll issued a concurring opinion and Judges Dyk and Hughes issued a dissenting opinion. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions for en banc review filed in patent cases along with two new amicus briefs in a patent case and a takings case. Finally, the court recently denied one petition for en banc review in a patent case. Here are the details.

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 several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, while the nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Delaware. Here are the introductions to the opinions.