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 three opinions, two in takings cases and one in a vaccine case, and a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. We also highlight reply brief in a patent case and oral arguments in two cases, a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.
Since our last update, there have been no new cases that attracted amicus briefs.
Opinions and Orders
Since our last update, in cases we have been following because they attracted amicus briefs, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in two takings cases and a vaccine case. The court also released a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. In an opinon authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Prost and Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case. See our opinion summary for more information.
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction over a due process claim and its grant of the government’s motion for summary judgment on a takings claim related to the seizure and withholding of vehicles as the result of a drug conspiracy investigation. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Lourie and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. In particular, the court held that “there is no police power exception that insulates the United States from takings liability for the period after seized property is no longer needed for criminal proceedings.” See our opinion summary for more information.
In this vaccine case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and oral argument. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Prost and Moore, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In particular the court held that “the special master did not abuse his discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief . . . to revive [an] initial-onset claim but did abuse his discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief . . . to allow presentation and adjudication of a significant-aggravation claim.” We will post our opinion summary later today.
In this case, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board via a Rule 36 judgment.
Since our last update there is one case with new briefing.
In this patent case, Amarin Pharma appeals a district court’s grant of Hikma’s motion to dismiss inducement claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Amarin argues the “district court erred by: (1) weighing Amarin’s allegations separately and in isolation against the plausibility pleading standard rather than considering whether, as Amarin pled, Hikma’s conduct as a whole induced infringement; (2) making implicit factual findings on the key question of what Hikma’s conduct communicated to prescribing physicians; and (3) misapplying skinny-label precedent.” It further contends “[t]hose errors effectively and improperly elevated the pleading standard to deprive Amarin of its right to pursue a more than plausible claim for induced infringement.” Since our last report about this case, Amarin filed its reply brief. In it, Amarin reiterates its original arguments regarding the district court’s analysis and the plausibility pleading standard.
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two cases that attracted amicus briefs.
In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the inter partes review petitioner “has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Notably, in this case, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was substituted for Concert Pharmaceuticals as the appellant to reflect a recent merger. Here is our argument recap.
In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a finding by the Merit Systems Protection Board that disclosures made by Besanceney, a criminal investigator for the Transportation Security Administration, were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Here is our argument recap. As noted above, however, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board in this case via a Rule 36 judgment.
Upcoming Oral Arguments
There are no upcoming oral arguments for the month of August in cases that have attracted amicus briefs.