FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority $633,150.90 for unpaid sewer charges. Judges Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Loomis v. Collins, a pro se veterans case we have been tracking because the court appointed counsel as amicus curiae. In this case, Loomis appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The case presents questions related to educational assistance benefits and the validity of a regulation issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In an opinion authored by Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the panel affirmed the lower court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted 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 four opinions: one in a patent case addressing obviousness, one in a case addressing veterans law, and two addressing bilateral tax treaties. We also identify two new patent cases, both raising questions of claim construction. We also highlight one response brief in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to copyright law and inter partes review proceedings; and five new amicus briefs in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to takings under state law and inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 11 panels to consider 66 cases. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 42. Notably, as we have reported, the Federal Circuit will hold panel hearings both in Chicago as well as Washington DC. 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.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted an amicus brief, District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. United States. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which awarded the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority $633,150.90 for unpaid sewer charges. In the appeal, the United States presents questions related to statutory interpretation and contractual equitable defenses. This is our argument preview.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Barron v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Barron appeals the dismissal of her takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. This appeal presents questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Christensen v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Like the case we discussed yesterday, in this case the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bruyea v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment. This is our summary of the court’s opinion.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., a case formerly styled Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. This is a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which resulted in the invalidation of a claim of a Netlist patent. Judges Dyk, Linn, and Chen 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 cases have attracted 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 four recent opinions: one addressing injunctive relief, two addressing bilateral tax treaties and their relation to net investment income tax, and one addressing educational benefits for veterans. We also identify two new cases: one raising questions related to injunctive relief, and one raising questions related to the domestic-industry requirement. We highlight two response briefs in cases that raised questions related to inter partes reviews and obviousness; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related remedies against the United States and copyright law; and one intervenor brief in a case that raises questions related to the ability to appeal denial of institution of inter partes review. Here are the details.