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:
- “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?”
- “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.
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales USA, Inc., a patent case in which Thales appeals a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Thales sought to “prevent Philips from pursuing an . . . exclusion order against Thales” at the International Trade Commission based on a commitment by Philips to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. We’ve been following this case because two amicus briefs were filed in support of Thales. This is our argument recap.
Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Memmer v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Memmer appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In particular, Memmer challenges the lower court’s analysis of causation as well as its decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appeals to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Indiana Southwestern would have abandoned [its right to use the property in question] if the NITU had not issued.” One amicus brief was filed in support of Memmer. This is our argument recap.
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Thaler v. Vidal, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue in the case. On appeal, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an “inventor” under the Patent Act. This is our argument recap.
Late last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in George v. McDonough, a case that raises an important question regarding review for clear and unmistakable error in the denial of a veteran’s claim for disability benefits: “When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of ‘clear and unmistakable error’ that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision?” This is our argument recap.