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, Larson v. McDonough. In this case, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. This is our argument preview.

The third case being considered next week that attracted an amicus brief is Tao v. Merit Systems Protection Board. In this case, Tao presents several arguments challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of her individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal, which alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Notably, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus brief in support of Tao. Moreover, following the amicus brief, the Merit Systems Protection Board filed its own brief agreeing that the underlying judgment should be vacated and the case should be remanded for further adjudication, and this case is not scheduled for oral argument. Nevertheless, here we summarize the arguments made in the briefs in anticipation of the court’s upcoming decision in this case.

One patent case being argued next week, Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Mobility Workx appeals an adverse decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an inter partes review proceeding. On appeal, Mobility Workx presents several arguments that inter partes violates the Constitution. This is our argument preview.

Next week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, and three cases scheduled to be considered next week attracted amicus briefs. One is Buffington v. McDonough, a veterans case presenting the question of whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs validly exercised rulemaking authority when promulgating a regulation related to the timing of payment of disability benefits. This is our argument preview.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the case that is predicted to determine the fate of the assignor estoppel doctrine. Specifically, the question presented to the Court is: “whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.” This is our argument preview.

The second and final case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc. In this patent case, New Vision appeals two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method reviews. New Vision contends the overall structure of post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges (‘APJs’)” and that such temptation violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It also argues that the PTAB “abdicated its obligation to exercise its discretionary authority in the face of [a] contractual obligation to not bring a PTAB challenge,” and that the APJs were unconstitutionally appointed. It also maintains that the PTAB erred in finding ineligibility. This is our argument preview.

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.