FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

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 five dispositions, two new cases, two cases with new briefing, and one upcoming oral argument. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued an important order granting a motion to vacate and remand in In re Boloro Global Ltd., a case we have been following. In the order, the court extended the application of Arthrex to ex parte patent examination appeals, determining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed in this context (in addition to inter partes review as in Arthrex). Here is a summary of the case and the order.  

On Wednesday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sellers v. Wilkie, another case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel (including Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling granting benefits to a veteran. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hardy v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case the government challenged a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. In the opinion, a panel of the court (including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Stoll) unanimously affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. While the panel agreed with the lower court that Hardy has a compensable property interest, it vacated and remanded because the trial court did not focus on the relevant inquiry in analyzing the case. Here is a summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This month the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument in one case that attracted an amicus brief, Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, Amgen, a patent owner, asked the Federal Circuit to force a district court to vacate its judgment of non-infringement in favor of a consent judgment of infringement. The Federal Circuit, however, never heard oral argument. This is our update in place of our normal argument recap.

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

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases, one precedential opinion in a takings case, and one precedential opinion in a trade case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition by a pro se appellant and the denial of two petitions in cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness. Here are the details.