FedCircuitBlog

As we mentioned yesterday, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejecting Chestek’s trademark application. The Board based on its judgment on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Beaudette v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. This is our argument preview.

Today, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . .  and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument preview.

On Wednesday, November 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. The Court granted review to consider whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument preview.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Boyer v. United States, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Both motions related to a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act, and the appeal relates primarily to the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court relied only on salary history to establish an affirmative defense. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned yesterday, two cases being argued in September at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is W. J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. This is our argument preview. 

Two cases being argued in September at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Darby Development Co. v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Court of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion to dismiss physical takings and illegal exaction claims related to the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Besanceney v. Department of Homeland Security. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a finding by the Merit Systems Protection Board that disclosures made by Besanceney, a criminal investigator for the Transportation Security Administration, were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the inter partes review petitioner “has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” Notably, in this case, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was substituted for Concert Pharmaceuticals as the appellant to reflect a recent merger. This is our argument preview.

As we previously mentioned, four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs, and two of those cases are appeals from ex parte reexaminations involving the same appellant, Cellect, LLC. In In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”), the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument preview.