FedCircuitBlog

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc. In this patent case, Paul and David Arlton seek reversal of a district court’s summary judgment ruling “that Plaintiffs’ claim for patent infringement is barred by [28 U.S.C.] § 1498,” as well as reversal of a denial of their motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. This is our argument preview.

Only one case scheduled for oral argument in September attracted an amicus brief. That case is an employment law case, Lesko v United States. It raises questions concerning how “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) should be interpreted after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and ultimately whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. After a panel of the court heard oral argument, the court voted sua sponte for en banc consideration. This is our argument preview.

There is one case being argued in August at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, relates to the apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example as a result of divorce decrees. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management asks the court to review whether the Merit Systems Protection Board “misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that OPM cannot divide the annuity supplement at all, unless the division of the annuity supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our argument preview.

This Thursday the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a case involving challenges to the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. We have been monitoring it both because it is being considered en banc and because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. This is our argument preview.

As we noted earlier this week, two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Sonos appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning prosecution laches, written description and priority dates, and summary judgment of invalidity. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case. In this case, Apple appeals from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. This is our argument preview.

Next month only one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. That case is a government contract case, Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States. The Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing in this case to reconsider the issue of standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. This is our argument preview.

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument preview.

Only one case being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. The case is Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. This is our argument preview.

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.