FedCircuitBlog

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 The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions, one in a Vaccine Act case and two in trade cases.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in a contract case, two precedential opinions in patent cases, one precedential opinion in a veterans case, and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases.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This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases.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.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and a precedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and two cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, drew interest from both the Aimed Alliance and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the issue of non-obviousness. In this case, Amarin, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight. This is our argument preview.