FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, HMTX appeals a judgment by the Court of International Trade, which upheld the U.S. Trade Representative’s tariffs on Chinese goods. HMTX alleged USTR’s tariffs “on hundreds of billions of dollars of imported Chinese goods are ultra vires and procedurally infirm.” This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court 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. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 three new opinions, one in a case related to the rulemaking authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs, another in a takings case related to water rights, and another related to patents alleged to be improperly listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. We also highlight five new cases, two related to trade agreements, two related to takings claims, and one patent case. Finally, we note new briefing in a patent case we have been tracking. Here are the details.

In December the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in City of Fresno v. United States, a takings case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims and a grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States. Parties to the California Central Valley Project sued the United States claiming they were entitled to water the United States failed to distribute after a drought in 2014. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal and grant of summary judgment. This is our opinion summary.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled for oral argument at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Marmen Inc. v. United States. In this case, Marmen appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is HMTX Industries LLC v. United States. In this case, HMTX challenges the Court of International Trade’s decision to uphold a proposed increase in tariffs on goods originating in China. This is our argument preview.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case, Amneal alleged that Teva delayed the entry of generic products into the market by improperly listing certain patents in the Orange Book. The District of New Jersey agreed and required Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed, and the Federal Circuit stayed the lower courts order pending its resolution of the appeal. Late last month, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s delisting order. This is our opinion summary.

As we highlighted yesterday, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is United Water Conservation District v. United States. In this case, United Water Conservation District appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its takings claim. The court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. This is our argument preview.

Four cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Dinh v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court 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. This is our argument preview.