FedCircuitBlog

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument Marmen Inc. v. United States, a trade case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Chen heard oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, HMTX appeals a judgment by the Court of International Trade, which upheld the U.S. Trade Representative’s tariffs on Chinese goods. HMTX alleged USTR’s tariffs “on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported Chinese goods are ultra vires and procedurally infirm.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and then the Federal Circuit. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted seven amicus briefs. In it, Teva challenges a district court’s injunction requiring it to delist five patents from the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. Judges Prost, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Restem appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which resulted in challenged claims being found not unpatentable. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents were not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument recap.