FedCircuitBlog

Early this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case involved allegations the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) committed takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it banned bump-fire type rifle stocks. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case, and Judges Taranto, Wallach, and Chen heard the appeal. Judge Taranto authored a short non-precedential opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claims, and Judge Wallach authored an opinion concurring in the result. This is our opinion summary. 

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 in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, a patent case appealed from a federal district court, and a tax case appealed from the Court of International Trade. We also highlight a new patent case raising a question related to personal jurisdiction and service of process, along with a copyright case that attracted five new amicus briefs. Here are the details.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. Judge Stoll authored the panel’s opinion, which relates to damages law and the exclusion of expert testimony seeking to present a reasonable royalty analysis. This is our opinion summary.

On August 26 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Larson v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Reyna, and Hughes. The judges considered whether the court should overrule what Larson characterized as the Veterans Court’s prohibition of reviewing Board of Veterans Appeals decisions regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule of Disabilities. Judge Hughes authored the court’s opinion, which reversed and remanded the case back to the Veterans Court. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 23 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna. These judges considered whether regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. Judge Reyna authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of International Trade’s judgment finding the regulations to be invalid. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 6 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Buffington v. McDonough, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Chief Judge Moore as well as Judges Lourie and O’Malley. These judges considered whether the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exceeded his statutory authority when he promulgating a regulation related to the timing of resumption of disability benefits payments following a period of active military service. Chief Judge Moore authored the majority opinion in the case, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judge O’Malley dissented. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 5 the Federal Circuit issued a new panel opinion in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Newman and Prost formed the panel hearing this case. The court’s new opinion was filed per curiam, with Judge Prost authoring a dissent. In the new opinion, the court again vacated a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law “because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of induced infringement.” Furthermore, as before, the panel reinstated the jury’s damages award “because the district court did not err in its jury instructions on damages.” But the new panel opinion is most notable because it addresses the arguments made in the amicus briefs supporting rehearing. Those amicus briefs argued that the panel’s original opinion “could be read to upset the careful balance struck with . . . carve-outs” in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Indeed, the case involved an alleged, so-called “skinny label,” a label that omits language indicating infringing use. In the panel’s new opinion, the majority maintained that its “narrow, case-specific review of substantial evidence does not upset the careful balance struck by the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding [such] carve-outs.” Here we provide the court’s description of the background of the case, a summary of the court’s analysis, and relevant parts of Judge Prost’s dissent. 

On August 2 the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case was argued before Judges Newman, Linn, and Chen. Judge Linn authored the majority opinion affirming the district court, and Judge Newman dissented. The opinions relate to the doctrine of standing and the proper interpretation of the bylaws of the University of Michigan as they relate to ownership of intellectual property. This is our opinion summary. 

On August 13, the Federal Circuit issued another order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus, this one in In re DISH Network L.L.C., another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. While the court denied the petition, the court noted that “the district court here erred in relying on DISH’s general presence in Western Texas without tying that presence to the events underlying the suit.” As a result, the court stated it is “confident the district court will reconsider its determination in light of the appropriate legal standard and precedent on its own.” Also, notably, Judge Reyna wrote a concurring opinion in this case. Here is a summary of the case, the order, and the concurring opinion. 

On August 4, the Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Google LLC, another case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. As in In re Apple Inc., the court denied the petition. The court held that “Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.” The court reasoned it was not “prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual findings” of the district court. Here is a summary of the case and the order.