FedCircuitBlog

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

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.

Next month only one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. That case is a government contract case, Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States. The Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing in this case to reconsider the issue of standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Middle District of Florida. Notably, Judge Stark concurred in part and dissented in part from the court’s holding vacating the district court’s judgment and remanding for further proceedings based on errors in claim construction. The second opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the two orders transfers an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, while the other order dismisses an appeal for lack of an appealable final judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the transfer and dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit “established an important precedent regarding inherent disclosure and implicit claim construction” in a recent opinion issued in an appeal from an inter partes review proceeding;
• an article describing how the Federal Trade Commission is calling “on Teva, Novartis, Mylan and other drugmakers” to “remove patents from a key federal database that partially insulates their drugs from generic competition”;
• a report discussing a recent petition for en banc rehearing that argues a Federal Circuit opinion related to the domestic industry requirement for establishing jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission “overlooks the cardinal rule that statutory language must be read in context”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]welve states . . . urged a federal court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping taxes on imports.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded in part based on error in a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment of a district court. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, three new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions; the second raises questions related to deference to the Office of Personnel Management; and the first was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, as we noted last week the Supreme Court recently held held oral argument in one case decided by the Federal Circuit and issued an opinion in another. With respect to pending petitions, the Court granted two petitions, vacated the judgments, and remanded the cases in light of the Court’s holding in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Also, a new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to the ability of a court of appeals to revive a waived argument; a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in another patent case raising questions related to patent eligibility and Federal Circuit Rule 36; and a brief in opposition was filed in yet another patent case raising questions concerning so-called skinny labels. Finally, the Court denied two petitions, one raising questions related to ripeness of takings claims and the other raising a question related to the on-sale bar to patentability. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument recap.

On April 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that a “federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to ‘any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency’ is entitled to differential pay without having to prove that his service was substantively connected in some particular way to some particular emergency.” Justice Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Here is our summary of the Court’s opinions.