FedCircuitBlog

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One was Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, in a government contract case. Judges Prost, Clevenger, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Four cases argued this month attracted amicus briefs. One was Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect Inc. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the District of Delaware that an out-of-state non-party was in contempt of court for disregarding an order requiring her to testify at a hearing. Judges Prost, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court is reviewing the Federal Circuit’s dismissal of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. This is our argument recap. 

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lemon Bay Cove LLC v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which held that the denial of a wetland permit by the United States Army Corps of Engineers was not a categorical taking or regulatory taking of Lemon Bay’s land. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Celanese International Corporation v. International Trade Commission. This is a patent case that attracted an amicus brief in support of reversal. In the appeal, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the International Trade Commission that, under the post-America Invents Act on-sale bar provision, the sale of products made by a secret process invalidates a subsequently filed patent application on that process. Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ireland v. United States, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Western District of Texas to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in an unemployment benefits case under the Little Tucker Act. Judges Lourie, Linn, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board. We’ve been following because this case because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over an appeal because the appellant failed to prove he was an “employee” within the meaning of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Stark heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Frantzis v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Veteran Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. Judges Moore, Clevenger, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case being heard by the court en banc. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and, in the process, determining whether to adopt a more flexible test for analyzing design patent obviousness compared to the existing “Rosen-Durling” test. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. LNW Gaming, a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from two judgments of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in covered business method review proceedings. New Vision contended the overall structure for instituting and funding post-grant review proceedings under the America Invents Act “creates impermissible incentives for the PTAB, its leadership, and the individual administrative patent judges.” These incentives, New Vision argued, violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. New Vision also argued the “petitions should have been denied pursuant to the contractual obligation that all disputes over the [relevant] agreement are to be resolved in a Nevada court.” Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument This is our argument recap.