DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Federal Circuit Rules of Practice Practice Notes And Forms Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules December 2016 Washington, DC www.cafc.uscourts.gov 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Circuit Justice The Chief Justice Chief Judge Hon. Sharon Prost Circuit and Senior Circuit Judges Hon. Pauline Newman Hon. Haldane Robert Mayer Hon. S. Jay Plager Hon. Alan D. Lourie Hon. Raymond C. Clevenger, III Hon. Alvin A. Schall Hon. William C. Bryson Hon. Richard Linn Hon. Timothy B. Dyk Hon. Kimberly A. Moore Hon. Kathleen M. O’Malley Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna Hon. Evan J. Wallach Hon. Richard G. Taranto Hon. Raymond T. Chen Hon. Todd M. Hughes Hon. Kara F. Stoll Circuit Executive and Clerk of Court Peter R. Marksteiner Officers of the Court & Senior Staff Circuit Librarian, John D. Moore Senior Staff Attorney, J. Douglas Steere Senior Technical Assistant, Marilyn Wennes Operations and Administrative Services, Dale Bosley Director of Information Technology and Chief Deputy Clerk of Court, Mona Harrington United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 1 Advisory Council Carter G. Phillips, Chair Tina M. Chappell The Honorable Leonard Davis (Retired) Tara D. Elliott David Folsom Susan Tsui Grundmann The Honorable James F. Holderman (Retired) Martin F. Hockey, Jr. Matthias Kamber Nathan K. Kelley Kevin Parton Robert L. Stoll Deanna Tanner Okun David O. Taylor John M. Whealan United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS EDITION TITLE I. APPLICABILITY OF RULES . FRAP Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Definition; Title . Federal Circuit Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title . FRAP Rule 2. Suspension of Rules TITLE II. APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT . FRAP Rule 3. Appeal as of Right—How Taken . Federal Circuit Rule 3. Appeal as of Right—How Taken . Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken . Federal Circuit Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—Untimely Notice . FRAP Rule 5. Appeal by Permission . Federal Circuit Rule 5. Appeal by Permission . FRAP Rule 6. Appeal in a Bankruptcy Case . FRAP Rule 7. Bond for Costs on Appeal in a Civil Case . FRAP Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal . Federal Circuit Rule 8. Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal . FRAP Rule 9. Release in a Criminal Case . FRAP Rule 10. The Record on Appeal . Federal Circuit Rule 10. The Record on Appeal . FRAP Rule 11. Forwarding the Record . Federal Circuit Rule 11. Forwarding the Record . FRAP Rule 12. Docketing the Appeal; Filing a Representation Statement; Filing the Record . Federal Circuit Rule 12. Notice of Docketing . FRAP Rule 12.1 Remand After an Indicative Ruling by the District Court on a Motion for Relief That Is Barred by a Pending Appeal TITLE III. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT . FRAP Rule 13. Review of a Decision of the Tax Court . FRAP Rule 14. Applicability of Other Rules to the Review of a Tax Court Decision United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 3 TITLE IV. REVIEW OR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, BOARD, COMMISSION, OR OFFICER . FRAP Rule 15. Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order—How Obtained; Intervention . Federal Circuit Rule 15. Review of an Agency Order - How Obtained . FRAP Rule 15.1 Briefs and Oral Argument in a National Labor Relations Board Proceeding . Rule 16. The Record on Review or Enforcement . Rule 17. Filing the Record . Federal Circuit Rule 17. Filing the Record . Rule 18. Stay Pending Review . Federal Circuit Rule 18. Stay Pending Review . Rule 19. Settlement of a Judgment Enforcing an Agency Order in Part . Rule 20. Applicability of Rules to the Review or Enforcement of an Agency Order . Federal Circuit Rule 20. Applicability of Rules to the Review of an Agency Order TITLE V. EXTRAORDINARY WRITS . Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs . Federal Circuit Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs TITLE VI. HABEAS CORPUS; PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS . FRAP Rule 22. Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Proceedings . FRAP Rule 23. Custody or Release of a Prisoner in a Habeas Corpus Proceeding . FRAP Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis . Federal Circuit Rule 24. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis TITLE VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS . FRAP Rule 25. Filing and Service . Federal Circuit Rule 25. Filing and Service . FRAP Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time . Federal Circuit Rule 26. Computing and Extending Time . FRAP Rule 26.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement . Federal Circuit Rule 26.1. Corporate Disclosure Statement . FRAP Rule 27. Motions . Federal Circuit Rule 27. Motions . FRAP Rule 28. Briefs United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 4 . Federal Circuit Rule 28. Briefs . FRAP Rule 28.1 Cross-Appeals . FRAP Rule 29. Brief of an Amicus Curiae . Federal Circuit Rule 29. Brief of an Amicus Curiae . FRAP Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs . Federal Circuit Rule 30. Appendix to the Briefs . FRAP Rule 31. Serving and Filing Briefs . Federal Circuit Rule 31. Serving and Filing Briefs . FRAP Rule 32. Form of Briefs, Appendices, and Other Papers . Federal Circuit Rule 32. Form of Briefs, Appendices, and Other Papers . FRAP Rule 32.1 Citing Judicial Dispositions . Federal Circuit Rule 32.1. Citing Judicial Dispositions . FRAP Rule 33. Appeal Conferences . Federal Circuit Rule 33. Appeal Conferences . Federal Circuit Rule 33.1. Mediation Guidelines . FRAP Rule 34. Oral Argument . Federal Circuit Rule 34. Oral Argument . FRAP Rule 35. En Banc Determination . Federal Circuit Rule 35. En Banc Determination . FRAP Rule 36. Entry of Judgment; Notice . Federal Circuit Rule 36. Entry of Judgment; Judgment of Affirmance Without Opinion . FRAP Rule 37. Interest on Judgment . FRAP Rule 38. Frivolous Appeal—Damages and Costs . FRAP Rule 39. Costs . Federal Circuit Rule 39. Costs . FRAP Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing . Federal Circuit Rule 40. Petition for Panel Rehearing . FRAP Rule 41. Mandate: Contents; Issuance and Effective Date; Stay . Federal Circuit Rule 41. Issuance of Mandate . FRAP Rule 42. Voluntary Dismissal . FRAP Rule 43. Substitution of Parties . FRAP Rule 44. Case Involving a Constitutional Question When the United States or the Relevant State is Not a Party . FRAP Rule 45. Clerk’s Duties . Federal Circuit Rule 45. Clerk of Court’s Duties . FRAP Rule 46. Attorneys . Federal Circuit Rule 46. Attorneys . FRAP Rule 47. Local Rules by Courts of Appeals . Federal Circuit Rule 47.1. Sessions and Places of Holding Court . Federal Circuit Rule 47.2. Panels . Federal Circuit Rule 47.3. Appearance . Federal Circuit Rule 47.4. Certificate of Interest . Federal Circuit Rule 47.5. Statement of Related Cases United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 5 . Federal Circuit Rule 47.7. Attorney Fees and Expenses Incurred in This Court . Federal Circuit Rule 47.8. In Camera Proceedings . Federal Circuit Rule 47.9. Petition for Judicial Review Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(d) . Federal Circuit Rule 47.10. Dismissal of a Bankruptcy Stay Case . Federal Circuit Rule 47.11. Quorum . Federal Circuit Rule 47.12. Action for Judicial Review Under 38 U.S.C. § 502 . FRAP Rule 48. Masters . Federal Circuit Rule 49. Seal of the Court . Federal Circuit Rule 50. Employee and Former Employee . Federal Circuit Rule 51. Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability . Federal Circuit Rule 52. Fees . Federal Circuit Rule 53. Judicial Conference . Federal Circuit Rule 54. Library FEDERAL CIRCUIT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE RULES FEDERAL CIRCUIT FORMS United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules of Practice, Revised: December 2016 6 Foreword This document contains the rules for proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These rules include the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the corresponding Federal Circuit Rules. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure appear on a shaded background for ease in distinguishing them from the Federal Circuit Rules that are on a white background. Certain provisions within the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are inapplicable to this court or have been replaced with information in the corresponding Federal Circuit Rule. Those inapplicable provisions are indicated in this document in strikethrough text. Practice Notes following the various rules are in boxed informational sections. These Practice Notes discuss matters that are often asked of the Clerk’s Office staff. Counsel may rely on the notes but may not use them to avoid controlling statutes or rules. Other documents are available on the court’s website at www.cafc.uscourts.gov, including: Federal Circuit Forms, the Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants, Appellate Mediation Program Guidelines, Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules, the court’s Internal Operating Procedures, and a Guide to Courtroom Decorum. Inquiries about the Rules of Practice may be made to the Clerk’s Office at (email preferred): [email protected] or 202-275-8000. Public access, e-mail and telephone hours for the Clerk’s Office are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please check the court’s website for reference material or answers to frequently asked questions that may be of assistance to you. If you do call the Clerk’s Office, please have these rules on hand. Counsel receiving advice by telephone are expected to confirm it in writing to the Clerk and to opposing counsel when that advice appears to authorize exceptions to these rules. Comments on the rules are welcome. Please send comments to [email protected] or Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007
    American University Law Review Volume 56 | Issue 4 Article 1 2007 Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Jay S. Plager United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Plager, Jay S. “Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007.” American University Law Review 56, no. 4 (February 2007): 751-760. This Foreword is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Price of Popularity: The ourC t of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007 Abstract This year marked the twenty-fifth nniva ersary of the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The nniva ersary was acknowledged with appropriate ceremony, including an en banc session of the court on April 2 attended by various luminaries in the judicial and political branches of the United States. The somewhat tongue-in-cheek title of this essay is intended to suggest an important idea about the court today: with increased visibility, significance, and impact have come consequences, some desirable, some not. This essay undertook a brief review of how the court got where it is, and a look at what these consequences may be.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference
    -REPORTOF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH 16, 1999 WASHINGTON, D.C. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES CHIEFJUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, PRESIDING LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES March 16, 1999 Contents Call of the Conference........................... ......... ....4 Reports ...................................... ........ ....4 Elections...................................... .......... ....4 Executive Committee............................ .... ... ...4 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance ........ .......... ....5 Budgetary Matters......................... .... .... ..6 Federal Courts Improvement Legislation ......... .... ... ...6 Miscellaneous Actions...................... ......... ....7 Committee on the Administrative Office .............. ......... ....7 Committee Activities....................... .......... ....8 Committee on Automation and Technology ........... ......... ....8 Courtroom Technologies .................... ...... ... 8 Long Range Plan for Information Technology. ....... ... 8 Access to Internet Sites .................... Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System .............. .9 Bankruptcy Judgeships ................................... .9 Bankruptcy Estate Administration ........................... 10 Committee on the Budget....................................... Committee Activities..................................... Committee on Codes of Conduct.................................
    [Show full text]
  • JCUS-SEP 98, Pp
    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES September 15, 1999 The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 1999, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the Conference were present: First Circuit: Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., District of New Hampshire Second Circuit: Chief Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr. Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton, Eastern District of New York Third Circuit: Chief Judge Edward R. Becker Chief Judge Donald E. Ziegler, Western District of Pennsylvania Fourth Circuit: Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III Chief Judge Charles H. Haden II, Southern District of West Virginia Fifth Circuit: Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King Judge Hayden W. Head, Jr., Southern District of Texas Judicial Conference of the United States Sixth Circuit: Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr. Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr., Middle District of Tennessee Seventh Circuit: Chief Judge Richard A. Posner Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., Northern District of Indiana Eighth Circuit: Chief Judge Roger L. Wollman Judge James M. Rosenbaum, District of Minnesota Ninth Circuit: Chief Judge Procter Hug, Jr. Judge Lloyd D. George, District of Nevada Tenth Circuit: Chief Judge Stephanie K. Seymour Judge Ralph G. Thompson, Western District of Oklahoma Eleventh Circuit: Chief Judge R. Lanier Anderson III Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, Middle District of Florida 40 September 15, 1999 District of Columbia Circuit: Judge Laurence H. Silberman1 Chief Judge Norma H.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul Gugliuzza Boston University School of Law
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 6-2012 Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul Gugliuzza Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul Gugliuzza, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, 100 Georgetown Law Journal 1437 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/168 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction PAUL R. GUGLIUZZA* Thirty years ago, Congress created the Federal Circuit for the overriding purpose of bringing uniformity to patent law. Yet less than half of the court’s cases are patent cases. Most Federal Circuit cases involve veterans benefits, government-employment actions, government contracts, and other matters. Al- though existing literature purports to study the Federal Circuit as an institution, these projects focus largely on the court’s patent cases. This Article, by contrast, considers whether the court’s nonpatent docket might affect the development of patent law and whether the court’s specialization in patent law has conse- quences for how it decides nonpatent cases. These inquiries result in two primary contributions. First, drawing on institu- tional-choice theory, this Article suggests that certain litigants—particularly military veterans but also government employees and government contractors— should not be forced to litigate appeals in a specialized court in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul R
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2012 Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction Paul R. Gugliuzza University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Paul R. Gugliuzza, Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction, 100 Geo. L.J. 1437 (2012), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/ facultypub/254 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Rethinking Federal Circuit Jurisdiction PAUL R. GUGLIUZZA* Thirty years ago, Congress created the Federal Circuit for the overriding purpose of bringing uniformity to patent law. Yet less than half of the court’s cases are patent cases. Most Federal Circuit cases involve veterans benefits, government-employment actions, government contracts, and other matters. Al- though existing literature purports to study the Federal Circuit as an institution, these projects focus largely on the court’s patent cases. This Article, by contrast, considers whether the court’s nonpatent docket might affect the development of patent law and whether the court’s specialization in patent law has conse- quences for how it decides nonpatent cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Face of the Law School
    The University of Virginia School of Law UVALawyer Fall 2004 The Face of the Law School The University of Virginia School of Law contents UVALawyer Fall 2004 Vol. 28, No. 2 Departments 3 Dean’s Message 4 Law School News 22 Faculty Briefs 4 57 Class Notes 82 In Memoriam 84 In Print 88 Opinion: 32 Corporate Diversity is Invaluable and Incomplete Charles Tribbett III ’80 Features 32 A Man for the Season: Don Yee ’87 Cullen Couch 38 38 Center Sparks Dialogue on Race and Law Denise Forster EDITOR Cullen Couch 42 Behind the Scenes of Brown: E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. ’53 ASSOCIATE EDITOR Denise Forster Cullen Couch CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Margaret Heritage, Earthen Johnson, Luana Mendes-Martinez, 48 Bakke Revisited Mike Marshall, Mary Wood John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 DESIGN roseberries 52 Klarman Offers New Argument on Origin and Effects of Brown PHOTOGRAPHY Tom Cogill Cullen Couch ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY Ian Bradshaw, Cullen Couch, Susan Baker Kalergis PRINTING Schmitz Press Department text starts here after head 2 Spring2004 dean’s message The Face of the Law School I John C. Jeffries, Jr. ’73 This issue of UVALawyer celebrates diversity in the Law School. Diversity, of course, has many dimensions. Perhaps the most important — and certainly the most disputed — is use of diversi- ty as a factor in admissions. At the Law School, assessments of individual applicants begin with intellectual aptitude and academic achievement. We also look for accomplishments and experiences that predict success. These include significant achievement in extracurricular activities, meaningful work experience, successful military service, and contributions to campus or community through service and leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Circuit Justice
    Incorporating amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. Updated to incorporate emergency amendment language for Fed. R. Cir. 15(f). United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Circuit Justice Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Chief Judge Sharon Prost Circuit and Senior Circuit Judges Pauline Newman Kimberly A. Moore Haldane Robert Mayer Kathleen M. O’Malley S. Jay Plager Jimmie V. Reyna Alan D. Lourie Evan J. Wallach Raymond C. Clevenger, III Richard G. Taranto Alvin A. Schall Raymond T. Chen William C. Bryson Todd M. Hughes Richard Linn Kara F. Stoll Timothy B. Dyk Federal Circuit Rules of Practice (December 1, 2020) – UPDATE Page i Officers of the Court and Senior Staff Peter R. Marksteiner CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE AND CLERK OF COURT Jeffrey Goldberg Jarrett B. Perlow GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK Marilyn Wennes Patrick Barnwell SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Jessica Perovich Riley Toussaint CIRCUIT LIBRARIAN DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Advisory Council Members Carter G. Phillips, Chair Matthias Kamber Leonard Davis (Ret.) Thomas W. Krause Tara D. Elliott Deanna Tanner Okun Michael R. Franzinger Kevin Parton Arthur J. Gajarsa (Ret.) Adam R. Shartzer Martin F. Hockey, Jr. Robert L. Stoll James F. Holderman (Ret.) David O. Taylor ex officio Peter R. Marksteiner George F. Hutchinson Jeffrey Goldberg Scott M. McCaleb Deborah M. Miron Michael J. Schaengold Sonal N. Mehta Jamie D. Underwood Federal Circuit Rules of Practice (December 1, 2020) – UPDATE Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ....................................................................................................................... xi Title I — Applicability of Rules ..................................................................................... 1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1 ...................................................................... 1 Scope of Rules; Definition; Title Federal Circuit Rule 1 ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    66 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, Court Term The term of the Court the Director of Budget and Personnel, begins on the first Monday in October the Court Counsel, the Curator, the and lasts until the first Monday in Director of Data Systems, and the Public October of the next year. Approximately Information Officer. 8,000 cases are filed with the Court in Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate the course of a term, and some 1,000 jurisdiction has been conferred upon the applications of various kinds are filed Supreme Court by various statutes under each year that can be acted upon by a the authority given Congress by the single Justice. Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling Access to Facilities The Supreme Court jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 1254, 1257–1259, and various special Federal holidays. Unless the Court or statutes. Congress has no authority to Chief Justice orders otherwise, the change the original jurisdiction of this Clerk’s office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 Court. p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Rulemaking Power Congress has from Federal legal holidays. The library is time to time conferred upon the open to members of the bar of the Court, Supreme Court power to prescribe rules attorneys for the various Federal of procedure to be followed by the departments and agencies, and Members lower courts of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Supreme Court Ruled in June 2014 That Induced
    http://www.law360.com/in-depth/articles/814461?nl_pk=7545a5b5-6a94-47d3-8aa3- 2e19884905c5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=in-depth When the Supreme Court ruled in June 2014 that induced infringement can be found only when one party performs every step of a patent, the high court didn’t just overturn a Federal Circuit decision expanding liability for induced infringement to include companies that perform only some steps, it cast into doubt the Federal Circuit’s overall approach to patent infringement. “The Federal Circuit’s analysis fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe a method patent,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous court in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. “The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would ... require the courts to develop two parallel bodies of infringement law.” The sharp criticism was all the more awkward coming from a court made up of mostly generalists and directed at the appeals court that was formed more than three decades ago with the mission to unify patent law. But it wasn’t the first time the Supreme Court came down hard on the Federal Circuit, and in all likelihood, it won’t be the last. The Supreme Court has taken a greater interest in patent cases over the past 15 years and is showing no hesitance in reversing the Federal Circuit. In response, the appeals court has been handing down decisions that show some obstinance in bending to the high court, signaling a tussle between the two courts over who should have the final say on patent law. More recently, the Federal Circuit has shown signs that it is laying low by issuing fewer dissents, relying on nonprecedential decisions and taking more cases en banc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Courts of the United States
    68 U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL The library is open to members of the bar of the Court, attorneys for the various Federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress. Only members of the bar of the Court may practice before the Supreme Court. The term of the Court begins, by law, the first Monday in October of each year and continues as long as the business before the Court requires, usually until about the end of June. Six members constitute a quorum. Approximately 7,000 cases are passed upon in the course of a term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice. Jurisdiction According to the and Fact, with such Exceptions, and Constitution (art. III, sec. 2), ``[t]he under such Regulations as the Congress judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, shall make.'' in Law and Equity, arising under this Appellate jurisdiction has been Constitution, the Laws of the United conferred upon the Supreme Court by States, and Treaties made, or which shall various statutes, under the authority be made, under their Authority;Ðto all given Congress by the Constitution. The Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;Ðto all basic statute effective at this time in Cases of admiralty and maritime conferring and controlling jurisdiction of Jurisdiction;Ðto Controversies to which the Supreme Court may be found in 28 the United States shall be a Party;Ðto U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1257±1259, Controversies between two or more and various special statutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Specialization in Specialized Courts
    Copyright 2021 by Melissa F. Wasserman & Jonathan D. Slack Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 115, No. 5 CAN THERE BE TOO MUCH SPECIALIZATION? SPECIALIZATION IN SPECIALIZED COURTS Melissa F. Wasserman & Jonathan D. Slack ABSTRACT—While modern society has embraced specialization, the federal judiciary continues to prize the generalist jurist. This disconnect is at the core of the growing debate on the optimal level of specialization in the judiciary. To date, this discussion has largely revolved around the creation of specialized courts. Opinion specialization, however, provides an alternative, underappreciated method to infuse specialization into the judiciary. In contrast to specialized courts, opinion specialization is understudied and undertheorized. This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, this Article theorizes whether opinion specialization is a desirable practice. It argues that the practice’s costs and benefits are a function of whether the court itself is specialized. More specifically, this Article contends that while opinion specialization may be normatively desirable for generalist courts, it is likely not for specialized tribunals. Perhaps most concerning, this Article argues that opinion specialization in specialized courts increases the likelihood legal doctrine will reflect the idiosyncratic preferences of a few judges. Second, given the concerns associated with opinion specialization in specialized tribunals, this Article empirically tests the extent to which specialization occurs in these specialized courts. We approach this question by examining the process of opinion assignment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is best known for its near-exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals. Utilizing a novel, author-constructed database of Federal Circuit opinions issued between 2004 and 2018, we find that opinion specialization is a robust part of the Federal Circuit’s practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Styles
    JUST WORDS? THE EFFECTS OF NO-CITATION RULES IN FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS Jessie Allen∗ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................... 556 I. The Use of No-Citation Rules .............................................................. 561 A. How No-Citation Rules Developed ................................................. 561 B. No-Citation Rules Today ................................................................. 568 II. No-Citation Rules and the Due Process Right to Be Heard ................ 574 A. The Basic Argument: Consistency Is Deeply Associated with Fairness and Correctness. ................................................................ 575 B. Applying Due Process Doctrines ..................................................... 583 III. The Impact of No-Citation Rules on Courts’ Precedential Practice .. 591 A. The Connection between Availability of Information about Prior Cases and Courts’ Adherence to Precedent .................................... 592 B. How No-Citation Rules Reshape Precedential Practices ................. 594 C. Allowing Citation of Nonbinding Opinions for a More Flexible Precedential Practice........................................................................ 601 IV. Precedent, No-Citation Rules, and Courts’ Power to Affect Society 603 A. Precedent and Judges’ Transformative Verbal Power ..................... 604 B. No-Citation Rules and Judicial Action ............................................ 608 ∗ Associate Counsel,
    [Show full text]