This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting tomorrow. For the last time since the start of the pandemic, the court will hear all its oral arguments telephonically. Again this month the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene nine panels to consider about 44 cases. Of these 44 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 32. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one a veterans case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.
As explained in our argument preview, this is a veterans case where Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition on reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities.
According to Larson, the question presented is whether “the Veterans Court err[ed] when it expanded the prohibition against judicial review of the Veterans Affairs Schedule of Rating Disabilities in 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b) to encompass a [Board of Veterans Appeals] decision that obesity and Dysmetabolic syndrome (DMS) could not be disabilities under 38 U.S.C. § 1110?”
The Secretary, however, maintains that according to Federal Circuit precedent “§ 7252(b) precludes judicial review over VA selections for ‘both the ratings and the injuries for which the ratings are provided’ in the schedule.” As such, the Secretary urges the court to affirm the decision of the Veterans Court.
This case attracted an amicus brief from the National Veterans Legal Services Program and the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates in support of Larson.
Chris Attig will argue for Larson.
Eric Singley will argue for the Secretary.
This argument is scheduled to take place, Tuesday, July 6 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern in (virtual) Courtroom 402.
As discussed in our argument preview, in this patent case, Kannuu appeals an adverse decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In particular, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contractual agreement among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction.
In response, Samsung argues that the district court was correct in “denying a preliminary injunction based on its conclusion that Kannuu failed to satisfy any of the four factors required for an injunction.” Further, Samsung contends, “[d]espite Kannuu’s arguments that . . . federal patent policy interests allow agreements to waive the right to pursue IPR proceedings, federal patent policy is clear that, at a minimum, it requires a clear statement of the parties’ intent to foreclose such rights to IPR proceedings.”
This case attracted two dueling amicus briefs from groups of law professors regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract.
Perry Goldberg will argue for Kannuu.
David Cooper will argue for Samsung.
This argument will take place Thursday, July 8 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern in (virtual) Courtroom 201.