FedCircuitBlog

Here is this month’s 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 cases, one with an upcoming oral argument. Additionally, we highlight an opinion in a patent case, a patent case with a new brief, and argument recaps for three cases that were heard in October. Here are the details.

On November 1, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Secretary of Defense v. Raytheon Co., a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals relating to Raytheon’s compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulations regarding whether lobbying and acquisition and divesture costs may be passed on to the government. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Taranto. This is our argument recap.

Three cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases attracted four amicus briefs. That case is Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States. It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appeals the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appeals. This is our argument preview.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted two amicus briefs. That case is Behrens v. United States, which concerns a claim the federal government was liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. This is our argument preview.

Here is this month’s 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 an opinion in a takings case, two patent cases with new briefing, one patent case in which one of three appellants voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and three cases (two takings cases and one government contracts case) with upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Memmer v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Memmer appealed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims concerning a Notice of Interim Trail Use issued by the Surface Transportation Board. In the appeal, Memmer challenged the lower court’s decision that “the duration of the taking lasted as long as the railroad’s abandonment authority existed.” The United States cross-appealed to argue that the lower court “erred in holding that Appellants’ property was taken,” and in the alternative to argue that the takings concluded when the Notice of Interim Trail expired, resulting in a shorter period of time than the lower court found. In an opinion authored by Judge Schall and joined by Judges Lourie and Reyna, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded-in-part the lower court’s decision. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Skarr v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, after being diagnosed with leukopenia Skarr filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected benefits. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Skarr’s claim, and Skarr appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. That court certified a class including Skarr and similarly situated veterans. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed the class certification to the Federal Circuit, asserting the Veterans Court lacked authority to certify the class. Skarr cross-appealed the Veterans Court’s definition of the class. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judge Newman and Chief Judge Moore, this month the Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s class certification and denied Skarr’s cross-appeal. This is our opinion summary.

Here is this month’s 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 a new patent case concerning whether the institution process used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board comports with due process, an argument recap in a patent case addressing standing, and an opinion in a veterans case relating to class certification. Here are the details.

In June, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Military-Veterans Advocacy petitioned the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a rule that would presume Agent Orange herbicide exposure for veterans who had served during specified periods in Guam or Johnston Island. After VA denied MVA’s petition, MVA petitioned the Federal Circuit to set aside VA’s denial and remand the case for rulemaking. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Newman and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit denied MVA’s petition. This is our opinion summary.

Here is this month’s 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 a disposition in a veterans case, a brief filed by the government in a patent case raising a question related to the Appointments Clause, and an upcoming argument in another patent case raising questions related to standing. Here are the details.