FedCircuitBlog

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Bee v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, William Bee appeals the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. Judges Reyna, Clevenger, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising questions about unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing it erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case and treating a license from the Federal Communications Commission as property under the takings clause. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Taranto, and Judge Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a tax case, Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United States. In this case, Dougherty Electric appeals a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judges Lourie, Prost, and Taranto 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 three recent opinions, four recent orders, and one new case. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the International Trade Commission’s finding of no violation as to one set of parties (the “Active Respondents”) and the Commission’s entry of a limited exclusion order against another set of parties (the “Defaulting Respondents”). In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Chen dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the Commission’s decision in part. This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Google LLC, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Google filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a decision by the Patent and Trademark Office denying its petitions for inter partes review and to require the agency to reconsider its petitions without relying on any “settled expectations” rule. In an order authored by Judge Wallach, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

In December, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision of the Eastern District of Texas to deny leave for a third party to intervene and seek the unsealing of various filings. In an opinion authored by Judge Bryson, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen, dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the third party’s motion for permissive intervention.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued an order in Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Before the Court reached a decision, the United States voluntarily moved to remand the case. In a per curiam order, Judges Taranto, Bryson, and Cunningham granted the motion and remanded the case to the Court of International Trade. Here is a summary of the order.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of anticipation of asserted claims. A panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.