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 one disposition in a veterans law case, two oral argument recaps in a patent case and a veterans law case, four new patent cases, a patent case with new briefing, and four upcoming oral arguments in related Tucker Act cases. Here are the details.

This past Thursday, the court heard oral argument in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., an appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. We have been following the case because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contract among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. Judges Newman, Prost, and Chen heard Thursday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit quoted the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as explaining that “‘the precise question the Court must answer in this appeal is: how does the law treat a veteran who qualifies for the Montgomery GI Bill under one period of service and the Post-9/11 GI Bill under an entirely separate qualifying period or periods of service?’” At the Federal Circuit, Judge Newman authored a majority opinion affirming the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which disagreed with the Board of Veterans Appeals on this question. The panel held that “each period of service earns education benefits, subject to its cap of 48 aggregate months of benefits.” Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the panel’s holding regarding education benefits. This is our opinion summary.

This past Tuesday the court heard oral argument in Larson v. McDonough, an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes heard Tuesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

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 three dispositions, two upcoming oral arguments, and one case with new briefing. Here are the details.

One patent case being argued next week, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., attracted amicus briefs. In this case, Kannuu appeals an adverse decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On appeal, Kannuu argues that inter partes review proceedings brought by Samsung should have been enjoined due to a forum selection clause in a contractual agreement among the parties. Kannuu contends that the district court erroneously denied its related motion for a preliminary injunction. The arguments regarding the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract attracted dueling amicus briefs. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing two cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Larson v. McDonough. In this case, Larson asks the Federal Circuit to overrule what he characterizes as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. This is our argument preview.

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 three recent dispositions in two patent cases and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a copyright case attracting two amicus briefs, new briefing (including a second amicus brief) in a patent case, and two recent oral arguments in a patent and a veterans case. Here are the details.

This month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc. v. SG Gaming, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. That brief argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “trial system violates due process.” The brief pointed to an alleged “October Effect” where administrative patent judges allegedly “change their judging standards at the end and beginning of each performance evaluation period” and subjective performance evaluations that allegedly cause reasonable people to “question whether the PTAB invalidates patents so frequently because its constituent APJs try to please their budget-minded bosses through revenue-enhancing decision making.” Notably, Judge Moore authored a brief majority opinion vacating and remanding two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board based only on the Appointments Clause. Judge Newman concurred in part and dissented in part, but also did not address the alleged due process violation. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit decided Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The amicus brief argued that Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., “which held that patent licensing demand letters can never suffice to create personal jurisdiction over asserters of those patents, is inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent.” Judge Dyk authored a unanimous panel decision reversing and remanding the district court’s decision not to assert personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo. In the court’s view, its “more recent cases have concluded that, in the context of patent litigation, communications threatening suit or proposing settlement or patent licenses can be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.