FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case. The Federal Circuit also issued four nonprecedential opinions: one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one in a patent case, one in a tax case, and one in a veterans case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued six Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in four patent cases raising questions related to remedies, transfer of venue, novelty, non-obviousness, and real-party-in-interest rules, as well as a response to a petition raising questions related to double-patenting. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in a veterans case and a government contracts case, as well as two nonprecedential opinions in a tax case and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

The Federal Circuit did not issue any new opinions this morning.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene eleven panels to consider about 51 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will continue to hear fewer oral arguments than normal, with only about 28 cases being argued this month. Of the argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs, one a takings case and one a patent case. Here’s what you need to know about those cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a patent case and one in a trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions, one in a Vaccine Act case and two in trade cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinon in a contract case, two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a veterans case, and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week there is little to report on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court denied one petition in a pro se case. That’s it!

Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.