FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. Here’s what you need to know. The court will convene 15 panels to consider about 62 cases. Of these 62 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 26. Notably, none of these argued cases attracted amicus briefs. Finally, this month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic.

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 takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. One of them was a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument recap.

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of the patent cases, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the court considered the enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. This is our argument recap.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a patent case entitled MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. This is our argument preview.

This week we are previewing four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument preview.

As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second one we will preview is a patent case entitled Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. This case concerns patent law’s enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. Amgen asserts “the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.” This is our argument preview