FedCircuitBlog

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit. Each of these three cases attracted at least one amicus brief. Today we highlight a benefits case, Cross v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, Cross asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Merits Systems Protection Board regarding the denial of survivor benefits. In particular, the petitioner is claiming survivor benefits as a surviving former spouse when her deceased former husband failed affirmatively to re-elect survivor benefits during the few months between their divorce and his death. The appeal attracted an amicus brief filed by the Merit Systems Protection Board. This is our argument preview.

We are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Wolfe v. McDonough. In this case, the Secretary asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ms. Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” The government’s appeal attracted three amicus briefs, all arguing against the government’s position. This is our argument preview.

This week we have previewed three cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. We had planned to preview one additional case, Cross v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, Cross asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a decision of the Merits System Protection Board regarding survival benefits. Notably, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed an amicus brief. The court, however, postponed the oral argument for this case until further notice.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a tax case, Brown v. United States. In this case, George P. Brown and Ruth Hunt-Brown ask the Federal Circuit to overrule the holding of the Court of Federal Claims that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over their case because the Browns did not attach a power of attorney to amended income tax returns filed by their agent. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a trademark case, In re Elster. In this case, Elster asks the Federal Circuit to hold that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on any trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent” violates the Constitution’s First Amendment. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight an Equal Access to Justice Act case, Monroe v. United States. In this case, the United States asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterizes as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses to the plaintiff-appellee. This is our argument preview.

Four cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued at the Federal Circuit next week: Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Here is our argument preview.

One patent case being argued next week, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Kannuu appeals an adverse decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contractual agreement among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Larson v. McDonough. In this case, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. This is our argument preview.

The third case being considered next week that attracted an amicus brief is Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In this case, Tao presents several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Notably, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao. Moreover, following the amicus brief, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication, and this case is not scheduled for oral argument. Nevertheless, here we summarize the arguments made in the briefs in anticipation of the court’s upcoming decision in this case.