FedCircuitBlog

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a trademark case, In re Elster. In this case, Elster asks the Federal Circuit to hold that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on any trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent” violates the Constitution’s First Amendment. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight an Equal Access to Justice Act case, Monroe v. United States. In this case, the United States asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what it characterizes as an abuse of discretion by the trial court in awarding attorney’s fees and expenses to the plaintiff-appellee. This is our argument preview.

Four cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued at the Federal Circuit next week: Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Here is our argument preview.

One patent case being argued next week, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Kannuu appeals an adverse decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contractual agreement among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. 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, 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.