FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a prededential en banc opinion in a veterans case, National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, concluding that the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the case and that a Federal Circuit rule is invalid given the applicable statute of limitations. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; and a nonprecedential opinion in another case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introduction to the opinions.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 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 hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; a precedential order denying a petition for panel and en banc rehearing in an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over a dissent by Judge Wallach; and a nonprecedential erratum correcting a typographical error in an opinion issued in trade case yesterday. Here is the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a patent case entitled MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This week we are previewing four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.

The Federal Circuit released an announcement today concerning two updates. First, the court announced that its Rules of Practice have been updated to reflect amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. Second, the court announced increases to various miscellaneous court fees. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.