FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, raises a question relating to apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example, as a result of divorce decrees. This case asks whether the Merit Systems Protection Board misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that the Office of Personnel Management cannot divide annuity supplements at all, unless their division is expressly provided for in a court order. Judges Prost, Wallach, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. The panel, consisting of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes, affirmed the jury’s verdict as to one of the patents, reversed the districts court’s JMOL that two of the asserted patents were not invalid, vacated the damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on the validity of two of the asserted patents and damages for all three patents. This is our opinion summary.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dinh v. United States, a case we have been monitoring because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. The Court of Federal Claims held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. The Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas), affirmed. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two new opinions, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene five panels to consider 29 cases. Of the 29 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 19 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

There is one case being argued in August at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, relates to the apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example as a result of divorce decrees. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management asks the court to review whether the Merit Systems Protection Board “misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that OPM cannot divide the annuity supplement at all, unless the division of the annuity supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our argument preview.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted multiple amicus briefs. The case, Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., raises questions concerning prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the boundaries of judicial discretion at trial. Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, Apple appealed from a judgment of the International Trade Commission, arguing the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, in concluding that five patent claims are infringed and not invalid, and in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense. Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stark heard the oral arguments. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

As we noted earlier this week, two cases being argued in July at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case. In this case, Sonos appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning prosecution laches, written description and priority dates, and summary judgment of invalidity. This is our argument preview.