Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Chestek PLLC. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of Chestek’s trademark application based on non-compliance with the domicile address disclosure requirement. Judges Lourie, Chen, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Boyer v. United States
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Boyer v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment of a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. The appeal relates primarily to the plaintiff’s argument that the trial court incorrectly relied only on salary history to establish its affirmative defense. Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stoll heard the parties’ arguments. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Rudisill v. McDonough
This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case regarding educational benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court is considering whether “a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, . . . and under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, . . . is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.” This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Vidal v. Elster
This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. In this case, the Court is considering whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [of the Lanham Act] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – W. J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in W.J. v. Department of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. The panel hearing the argument included Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Darby Development Co. v. United States
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Darby Development Co. v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion to dismiss physical takings and illegal exaction claims. These claims relate to the Center for Disease Control’s eviction moratorium enacted during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Judges Dyk, Prost, and Stoll heard the parties’ arguments. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the inter partes review petitioner “has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable” as obvious. Notably, in this case, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries was substituted for Concert Pharmaceuticals as the appellant to reflect a recent merger. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – Besanceney v. Department of Homeland Security
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Besanceney v. Department of Homeland Security. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a finding by the Merit Systems Protection Board that disclosures made by Besanceney, a criminal investigator for the Transportation Security Administration, were not protected under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Notably, this case was decided via a summary affirmance the day after oral argument was heard. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – In re Cellect, LLC (Cellect II)
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect II”). In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.
Argument Recap – In re Cellect, LLC (Cellect I)
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Cellect, LLC (“Cellect I”), a patent case. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding patent claims unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. This is our argument recap.