FedCircuitBlog

On February 10, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., a patent case that includes both an appeal and a cross-appeal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Bard’s patent 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 patent claims are ineligible. The panel hearing the oral argument included Judges Chen, Wallach, and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Adams v. United States. In this case, the court is considering 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 recap.

On November 1, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals relating to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States, a case that concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing 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 appealed the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appealed. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Behrens v. United States, which involves a claim that the federal government is liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. In this case, the Behrens appealed a 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. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument last week in a veterans case, Arellano v. McDonough, to consider the following questions: 

1. “Does Irwin’s rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling apply to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, has the Government rebutted that presumption?”
2. “If 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, should this case be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance?”

In other words, the parties argued for and against the application of equitable estoppel to the one-year filing deadline for retroactive veterans benefits. This is our argument recap. 

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, an en banc veterans benefits case. In it, VA appeals the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that Rudisill qualified for Post-9/11 benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills. The en banc court agreed to consider two related questions: (1) “for a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under a separate period of qualifying service, what is the veteran’s statutory entitlement to education benefits;” and (2) “what is the relation between the 48-month entitlement in 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a), and the 36-month entitlement in § 3327(d)(2), as applied to veterans such as Mr. Rudisill with two or more periods of qualifying military service?” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Uniloc appeals a district court’s decision to dismiss its patent infringement action. In particular, Uniloc challenges the district court’s ruling that a license precluded Article III standing because the patent holder no longer held all of the patent’s exclusionary rights. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Personalized Media Communications appeals a district court’s decision to overturn a jury verdict. While the district court applied the “equitable doctrine of prosecution latches,” PMC claims the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in ruling that PMC engaged in an “egregious misuse” of the patent system. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Doyon v. United States, a case in which Doyon appeals a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims upholding a decision by the Board for the Correction of Naval Records to deny an application to modify his discharge records. Three amicus briefs were filed by veterans organizations in support of Doyon. This is our argument recap.