FedCircuitBlog

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled for oral argument at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Marmen Inc. v. United States. In this case, Marmen appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is HMTX Industries LLC v. United States. In this case, HMTX challenges the Court of International Trade’s decision to uphold a proposed increase in tariffs on goods originating in China. This is our argument preview.

As we highlighted yesterday, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is United Water Conservation District v. United States. In this case, United Water Conservation District appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its takings claim. The court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Dinh v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that, because Congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. This is our argument preview.

On December 9, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” The Federal Circuit held that, “[b]ecause Mr. Feliciano’s service does not qualify as an active duty contingency operation, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a), the Board properly denied differential pay.” This is our argument preview.

As we have reported, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in November attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. This is our argument preview.

As we have highlighted, three cases scheduled to be argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case involving a taking claim. In this case, ATS Ford Drive Investment appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC. In it, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that found challenged claims not unpatentable. This is our argument preview.

Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument preview.

As we have highlighted this week, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission. In this case, US Synthetic appeals a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. This is our argument preview.