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 an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.
New Cases
There are no new cases to report since our previous update.
Orders and Opinions
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in a tax case and a government contract case.
Dixon v. United States
In this tax case, Dixon appealed a ruling of the Court of Federal Claims relating to a tax refund claim that did not comply with the formal requirements of the Internal Revenue Service. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Court of Federal Claim correctly dismissed the case because, although the claims were timely filed, they were not “duly filed” under the relevant statute. As a result of its analysis, moreover, the Federal Circuit determined that the informal-claim doctrine did not apply here. We’ll post more in our opinion summary later this week.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force
In this government contract case, Lockheed Martin appealed a ruling of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Lockheed challenged whether a unilateral decision by the government constituted a government claim under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit concluded that definitizations of the contract prices did not constitute government claims because they were not assertions or demands by the government seeking relief against Lockheed Martin. As a result, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s ruling dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. For more information, check out our opinion summary, which we’ll post later this week.
New Briefing
Since our last update there are two cases with new briefing.
Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission
In this patent case, Celanese asserts an administrative law judge erred in concluding that the sale of its products invalidated its patent claims. Celanese argues the America Invents Act’s on-sale provision does not include “a product made by using the claimed invention” but, rather, “requires the ‘claimed invention’ itself . . . to be ‘on sale.’” Since our last report about this case, Celanese filed its reply brief. In it, Celanese reiterates its original arguments regarding the proper interpretation of the America Invents Act.
Cooperman v. Social Security Administration
In this pro se employment case, Cooperman filed a “Petitioner’s Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument.”
Argument Recap
The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case last month that attracted an amicus brief.
City of Wilmington v. United States
In this case concerning the Clean Water Act, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. Here is our argument recap.