FedCircuitBlog

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Darby Development Co. v. United States, a case that attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed a takings claim by owners of residential rental properties. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the owners did state a claim for a physical taking, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. This is our opinion summary.

In early August the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment, a trademark case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As explained by the appellants, “[i]n a two-to-one split decision, the Board held registrable a mark prominently incorporating without permission the certification mark COGNAC, holding that the mark . . . , if used for hip-hop music and production services, was not likely to cause confusion or dilution.” The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 four recent opinions, four new cases, new briefing in three cases, and a recent oral argument. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s order denying an anti-suit injunction. Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

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 two new opinions in two patent cases and one new case that attracted an amicus brief in another patent case. We also highlight new briefing in three patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a veterans case and two patent cases. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene just 3 panels to consider 16 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 11 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, just one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

One case that attracted an amicus brief will be argued in August at the Federal Circuit. That case is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., in which the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s order denying an antisuit injunction. 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 one new opinion in a veterans case and four new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a veterans case and three patent cases. We also highlight new briefing in two patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a trademark case and veterans case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued it opinion in Frantzis v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Veterans Claims that, under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, a claimant is not entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before the Board member who ultimately decides the administrative appeal. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Clevenger and Chen, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Veteran Claims. This is our opinion summary.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Freund v. McDonough, a veterans case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which dismissed the case as moot and denied Freund’s request for class certification. Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the argument. This is our argument recap.