Court Week

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States

As discussed in our argument preview, in this case, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In response, the government argues the bump-stock “devices are machine guns, and thus contraband under Federal criminal law.” .

Delaware state Representative Paul Baumbach and other individual gun owners filed an amicus brief in this case in support of the government. 

Jennifer Gelman will argue for Modern Sportsman, LLC.

Kenneth M. Dintzer will argue for the United States.

This argument will take place on Tuesday, December 8 at 10:00 A.M.

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC

As discussed in our argument preview, in this patent case Amgen asserts “the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.”

In response, Sanofi argues that, “[a]s a matter of law, Amgen’s patents were not enabled . . . . [and that] [t]he undisputed evidence established that making and using the full scope of Amgen’s functional genus claims requires undue experimentation.”

This case attracted three amicus briefs: one in support of Amgen, and two in support of Sanofi. 

Jeffrey A. Lamken will argue for Amgen.

Matthew M. Wolf will argue for Sanofi.

This argument will take place on Wednesday, December 9 at 10:00 A.M.

Rudisill v. Wilkie

As discussed in our argument preview, in this veterans case the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.”

In response, Rudisill argues “the Secretary’s interpretation leads to absurd, inequitable, veteran-unfriendly results, indicating it cannot be what Congress intended.”

National Veterans Legal Services Program and Veterans Education Success filed an amicus brief supporting Rudisill. 

Timothy L. McHugh will argue for Rudisill.

Galina I. Fomenkova will argue for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

This argument will take place on Wednesday, December 9 at 10:00 A.M.

MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.

As discussed in our argument preview, in this patent case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. 

In response to MLC’s opening brief, Micron argues that “district court’s evidentiary and discovery rulings were within its broad discretion.”

Three amicus briefs were filed, all in support of Micron. 

Fabio E. Marino will argue for MLC.

Ruffin B. Cordell will argue for Micron.

This argument will take place on Thursday, December 10 at 10:00 A.M.