FedCircuitBlog

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, Lynch v. McDonough. In this case, Lynch asks the Federal Circuit to overrule its decision in Ortiz v. Principi, a case that sets forth the burden of proof by which veterans must prove their claims. This is our argument preview.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.

One of the three cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a death benefit case entitled Rolfingsmeyer v. Office of Personnel Management. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying Patricia Rolfingsmeyer a survivor annuity and a basic employee death benefit based on the death of Tina Sammons, her alleged common law spouse. This is our argument preview.

Another case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. In this patent case, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s motion for an interlocutory appeal to review two different district courts’ holdings with respect to an alleged standing problem. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three cases on the Federal Circuit’s oral argument schedule next week that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a tax case, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury. In this case, the Department of the Treasury appeals a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade holding that regulations promulgated by the Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. This is our argument preview.

Next week, in an en banc session of the court, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Arellano v. Wilkie. In this veterans case, the court will consider the availability of equitable tolling in the context of disability benefits based on applications filed within one year from the date of the veteran’s discharge or release. In particular, the court will consider three related questions: (1) whether a presumption in favor of equitable tolling applies to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1), which relates to disability benefits; (2) if a presumption did apply, whether it would be rebutted by evidence that Congress did not intend an implicit exception for equitable tolling to be read into 38 U.S.C. § 5110; and (3) if the court were to hold that a presumption applies to section 5110(b)(1), whether that holding would result in the application of the same presumption to other provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5110. This is our argument preview.

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 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.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second one we will preview is a patent case entitled Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. This case concerns patent law’s enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. Amgen asserts “the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.” This is our argument preview

Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States. In this case, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the former owners contend the ATF committed either a physical or regulatory taking by using its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of bump-fire rifle stocks. The former owners allege they complied with the ATF’s legislative rule requiring abandonment and did not receive just compensation in return. The former owners argue that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims dismissing their action should be reversed. This is our argument preview.