FedCircuitBlog

Two cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, which concerns whether the federal government’s resort to unilateral price determinations under two F-16 Aircraft contracts constituted government claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government’s price modifications did not constitute government claims. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case in which the Secretary of Defense appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. This appeal relates to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying costs and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government.

Three cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases attracted four amicus briefs. That case is Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States. It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appeals the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appeals. This is our argument preview.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted two amicus briefs. That case is Behrens v. United States, which concerns a claim the federal government was liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. This is our argument preview.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arellano v. McDonough, a case raising questions about equitable tolling of a one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), “[t]he effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran shall be the day following the date of the veteran’s discharge or release if application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Although the Supreme Court held in Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs that “the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants should also apply to suits against the United States,” in this case the Federal Circuit held 6-6 that veterans are precluded from pursuing equitable tolling of § 5110(b)(1)’s one-year deadline. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following questions:

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

This is our argument preview. 

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider the question of a veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In particular, the court will consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument preview.

Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. That case is Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, which concerns Article III’s constitutional standing requirement in the context patent ownership. Specifically, in this case the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s determination that Uniloc USA, Inc. did not hold all exclusionary rights to the asserted patent for purposes of satisfying Article III’s standing requirement. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc. On appeal, Personalized Media Communications challenges a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict based on the equitable doctrine of prosecution latches. Personalized Media argues the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in ruling that Personalized Media engaged in an “egregious misuse” of the patent system. This is our argument preview.

We are previewing oral arguments scheduled for this month at the Federal Circuit in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Doyon v. United States, a case in which Doyon appeals a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims upholding a decision by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records to deny an application to correct discharge records. Three amicus briefs were filed by veterans organizations in support of Doyon. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales.” Two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales, one by the App Association and the other a joint brief by Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., U-Blox America, Inc., and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. This is our argument preview.