FedCircuitBlog

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Bard’s claims are directed to patent-ineligible printed matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and, moreover, lack an inventive concept. With respect to the cross-appeal, the court will similarly consider whether MedComp’s claims are ineligible. This is our argument preview.

As we reported yesterday, three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Realtime’s patents are directed to an abstract idea and lack inventive concept and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in February at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jazz must request the Food and Drug Administration remove (or “delist”) one of its patents from the FDA’s so-called Orange Book because that patent was improperly listed. This is our argument preview.

A second case being argued in January at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Apple Inc. v. Vidal. This case concerns an allegation that a district court erred in finding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. This is our argument preview.

Two cases being argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus brief. One of those cases is PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, a trade case. In it, PrimeSource Building Products claims the President did not act within his statutory authority by extending national security tariffs he had previously applied to steel articles to include derivatives of those articles. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the President exceeded his authority by issuing Proclamation 9980 outside the time limitations contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1). This is our argument preview.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Adams v. United States, a federal benefits case. The arguments will address whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument preview.

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.