FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 14 panels to consider 77 cases. Of these 77 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 51. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we have been reporting this week, three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is City of Fresno v. United States. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment related to breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred both in concluding that the contractual water rights in question were subordinate to the rights of others during a drought and by dismissing takings claims for lack of standing. This is our argument preview.

Three cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Beaudette v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. 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 two recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of International Trade that “the statutory authority to ‘modify’ a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes” and that Proclamation 10101 exceeded the President’s authority. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that the “the President’s view that a ‘modification’ may include a change in a trade-restricting direction, and is not limited to trade-liberalizing changes, is not unreasonable.” This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this year the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Sun’s patent claims in an inter partes review proceeding for failure to meet the non-obviousness requirement. In an opinion by Judge Stark, joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s judgment. In particular, the court held that the Board had “substantial evidence to conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation” of success in modifying compounds as directed in Sun’s patent claims.

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 Equal Pay Act case, the filing of new briefs in two patent cases, and the filing of new amicus briefs in another patent case. Here are the details.

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 a new patent case, a reply brief in another patent case, oral arguments in a takings case and a pro se case, and an opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in W.J. v. Department of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. The panel hearing the argument included Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Stark. This is our argument recap.

On Monday, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in In re Cellect, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, the court held that “ODP for a patent that has received [Patent Term Adjustment], regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” This is our opinion summary.