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 two dispositions in patent cases appealed from federal district courts and a disposition in a takings case appealed from Court of Federal Claims. Here are the details.
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has issued three opinions in cases that attracted at least one amicus brief.
In this case the Federal Circuit considered whether, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed takings when it banned bump-fire type rifle stocks. The panel affirmed the holding of the Court of Federal Claims because, “based on the preexisting federal law, th[e] plaintiffs lack a property right in continued possession or transferability of the devices at issue.” The opinion refers to another opinion decided on the same day, McCutchen v. United States, which provides the reasoning for this case. This case attracted an amicus brief from Rep. Paul Baumbach, Vic Bencomo, Jim Berzowski, Matthew DeFalco, Scarlett Flores, Dr. David Fitz, and “Other Individual Gun Owners.” For more details, see our opinion summary.
In this patent case, the Federal Circuit considered whether the district court erred in denying Kannuu Pty Ltd.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Samsung Electronics Co.’s petition for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. The panel held that the court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. This case attracted an amicus brief from five law professors in support of Kannuu and an amicus brief from eighteen intellectual property law professors in support of Samsung. For more details, see our opinion summary.
In this patent case, Mobility Workx, LLC presented several arguments that inter partes review violates the Constitution. In particular, it argued that inter partes review violates its right to due process and qualifies as a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The panel held that the “constitutional arguments are without merit,” but it remanded the case “to the Acting Director to determine whether to grant rehearing.” Notably, Judge Newman dissented in part. This case attracted an amicus brief from US Inventor, Inc. in support of Mobility. For more details, see our opinion summary.