FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd., a patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, A.L.M. Holding appeals a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. Judges Chen, Stark, and Cunningham heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. Judges Chen, Stark, and Cunningham heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judges Dyk, Schall, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Titanium appeals a denial by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Cunningham and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Christensen v. United States, a second tax case from March’s argument week that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bruyea v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States is appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims allowing American citizens residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bee v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appeals the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. Judges Reyna, Clevenger, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing it erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case and treating a license from the Federal Communications Commission as property under the takings clause. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Taranto, and Judge Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a tax case, Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United States. In this case, Dougherty Electric appeals a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judges Lourie, Prost, and Taranto heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a case we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.