FedCircuitBlog

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

Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States. In this case, 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. In particular, the former owners contend the ATF committed either a physical or regulatory taking by using its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of bump-fire rifle stocks. The former owners allege they complied with the ATF’s legislative rule requiring abandonment and did not receive just compensation in return. The former owners argue that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims dismissing their action should be reversed. 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 one disposition in a veterans case, new briefs filed in two patent cases raising due process questions related to post grant review proceedings, four recent oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases, and four upcoming oral arguments in patent, veterans, and takings cases.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of those cases, Euzebio v. Wilkie, the court heard arguments concerning the following veterans law issues: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument recap.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Monk v. Wilkie, a veterans case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. This case presents three issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay; (2) Did the CAVC misinterpret and misapply the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in holding that such a five-year delay does not violate the veteran’s due process rights; and (3) Did the CAVC misinterpret the mootness standard in dismissing certain claims. This is our argument recap.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Veterans4You LLC v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Veterans4You asserts that the Department of Veterans Affairs wrongly invoked the “printing mandate” in 44 U.S.C. § 501 to route a VA procurement through the Government Publishing Office, which in turn violated the “Rule of Two” statutory preference for veteran-owned small businesses. This is our argument recap.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Euzebio v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should be known to the Board;” (2) whether “the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacks the legal authority to look at relevant facts known to the agency for purposes of reviewing the Board’s decision;” and (3) whether “the Veterans Court misinterpreted the scope of VA’s duty to assist when it affirmed VA’s failure to develop the record with relevant facts concededly known to the agency.” This is our argument preview.

The third of four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is Monk v. Wilkie. In this case, the court will consider three issues related to veterans law: (1) Did the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay; (2) Did the CAVC misinterpret and misapply the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause in holding that such a five-year delay does not violate the veteran’s due process rights; and (3) Did the CAVC misinterpret the mootness standard in dismissing certain Appellants’ claims. This is our argument preview.

As we mentioned yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second case we are previewing is Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. In this case, the court will consider whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals erred in holding that the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a certain way. In particular, Boeing argues it should be permitted to mark technical data in a way that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights in the data, (b) does not restrict or impair the Government’s rights, and (c) restricts only the rights of third parties to use the data absent permission from the contractor or the Government. This is our argument preview.