FedCircuitBlog

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Euzebio v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should be known to the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument preview.

The third of four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Monk v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay; (2) Did the CAVC misinterpret and misapply the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in holding that such a five-year delay does not violate the veteran’s due process rights; and (3) Did the CAVC misinterpret the mootness standard in dismissing certain Appellants’ claims. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case we are previewing is Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. In this case, the court will consider whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Veterans4You LLC v. United States. In this case, Veterans4You asserts that the VA wrongly invoked the “printing mandate” in 44 U.S.C. § 501 to route a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) procurement through the Government Publishing Office (“GPO”). Veterans4You contends this approach resulted in a violated of the “Rule of Two,” a statutory preference for veteran-owned small businesses or service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. Veterans4You argues that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims upholding the VA’s action should be reversed. This is our argument preview.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the attorneys for two leading technology giants in the long-running software copyright case, Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. At issue is the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

Next week, in an en banc session of the court, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In this case, the court will consider two issues relates to veterans law: (1) whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review a generally applicable interpretive rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs through its Adjudication Procedures Manual, and (2) whether a Federal Circuit Rule impermissibly supersedes a statute of limitations. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC. In this case, Trimble, the plaintiff-appellant, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over a patent owner. This is our argument preview.

Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and two cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, drew interest from both the Aimed Alliance and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the issue of non-obviousness. In this case, Amarin, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight. This is our argument preview.

Only one case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted any amicus briefs, Conversant Wireless Licensing v. Apple Inc. This case previously came to the Federal Circuit in 2018 when the court determined that Apple infringed a patent asserted by Conversant. The court, however, remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the patent was unenforceable. On remand, the district court found that the patent was unenforceable, and Conversant now appeals that judgment. This is our argument preview.