FedCircuitBlog

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight one new opinion in government contract case, one new patent case raising a question related to Article III standing, and one new argument recap in a patent case involving a challenge to a district court’s claim construction. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Textron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Textron appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for summary judgment. In particular, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Textron’s claim as time-barred under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Judges Prost and Clevenger, affirmed the lower court’s judgment, holding that Textron’s claim had accrued by early 2013 and was untimely when filed in 2020. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 58 cases. Of the 58 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 36. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, only one case that is scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight five new opinions, four in patent cases and one in a government contract case; two new argument recaps, one in a trademark case and one in a trade case; and three new cases, one a design patent case and two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

Only one case being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted an amicus brief. The case is Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appeals a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. This is our argument preview.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. The issue on appeal in this case was whether patent term extension for a reissued patent “should be calculated based on the issue date of the original patent or the reissued patent.” The Federal Circuit reviewed a district court determination that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office correctly calculated a reissued patent term extension based on the patent’s original issue date. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Mayer and Reyna, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s determination. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit also released its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that we have been following because it attracted several amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit was asked to review a judgment of the International Trade Commission in a patent infringement case that resulted in a limited exclusion order restricting importation of Apple’s watch products. In a per curium opinion issued by a panel including Judges Hughes, Linn, and Stark, however, the Federal Circuit vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., a patent case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed three written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in related inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB found all claims of three patents unpatentable over certain asserted prior art. AliveCor challenged the PTAB’s findings, including by arguing that the IPR petitioner, Apple, violated its discovery obligations. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Hughes and Linn, affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness determination and declined to address AliveCor’s discovery challenge because it failed to raise the issue at the PTAB. This is our opinion summary.