FedCircuitBlog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, an antitrust case. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing tying and trade secret claims. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal and scheduled oral argument. Judges Moore, Prost, and Taranto heard the argument, and this is our argument recap.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument last month in City of Wilmington v. United States, a Clean Water Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dixon v. United States, a case that concerns the application of the informal claim doctrine of a tax refund request. Dixon appeals a ruling of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the court erred in dismissing his claim based on subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Judges Taranto, Clevenger, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in Jenkins v. United States, a takings case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by a district court that Jenkins is not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.