Opinions
on

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In it, the Federal Circuit affirmed a dismissal of the claim for lack of a cognizable property interest. The second comes in patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In it, the Federal Circuit affirms the Board’s denial of rehearing of two inter partes review proceedings. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Fishermen’s Finest, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)

This case involves commercial fishing within the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Fishermen’s Finest, Inc.; Fishermen’s Finest Holdings, LLC; North Pacific Fishing, Inc.; U.S. Fishing, LLC; and America’s Finest Fishing, LLC (collectively, FFI) appeal a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) dismissing their Fifth Amendment takings claim for lack of a cognizable property interest in certain fishing endorsements, licenses, and permits, separate from or appurtenant to their fishing vessels. Because (i) our precedent establishes that fishing permits and licenses issued pursuant to the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Magnuson–Stevens Act) are revocable privileges, rather than compensable property interests, Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Am. Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1373–76 (Fed. Cir. 2004); (ii) subsequent amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Act and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (Fisheries Service) regulations did not then create compensable property rights in fishing permits or licenses; and (iii) there is no inherent right in vessel ownership to fish within the EEZ, Am. Pelagic, 379 F.3d at 1382–83, we affirm.

CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google LLC (Precedential)

CyWee Group Ltd. (“CyWee”) requested that the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rehear two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, each of which had resulted in a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determining all challenged claims unpatentable. CyWee’s request was denied as to each IPR. CyWee appeals those denials. We affirm.

Dismissals

Rule 36 Judgment