FedCircuitBlog

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.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment by the District of Delaware, which held that Norwich infringed certain patent claims but that other claims were invalid for obviousness. After Norwich amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application to remove the infringing indication, Norwich sought to modify the judgment, contending the amendment negated any possible infringement. The district court, however, denied its motion. The Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judge Chen, affirmed the judgment of the district court. Judge Cunningham, however, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.

As we explained earlier this week, two cases that will be argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second of those cases is Bureau National Interprofessionnel Du Cognac v. Cologne & Cognac Entertainment. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed an opposition against Cologne & Cognac Entertainment’s mark. This is our argument preview.

Two cases that will be argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Freund v. McDonough. 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 action and class certification. 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 three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, a case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed Jones’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie that was joined by Judges Bryson and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit held that the Board properly dismissed the case because the administrative judge “did not legally err or lack substantial evidence when reaching her determination that Jones was not an ‘employee’ as used in [5 U.S.C.] § 7513(d).” This is our opinion summary.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ireland v. United States, a Little Tucker Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Western District of Texas to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll that was joined by Judges Lourie and Linn, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the case for failure to state a claim because “[t]he plain language of § 9021(b) does not create a mandatory payment obligation between the Secretary and ‘any covered individual.’” 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. Today with respect to these cases we highlight three opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Pay Act case, a vaccine case, and a veterans case. Additionally, we highlight two new patent cases, new briefing in two patent cases, and oral arguments in nine cases last and this month. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late February in a case that attracted an amicus brief, Beaudette v. McDonough. This is a veterans case in which the Federal Circuit reviewed 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. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly issued the writ of mandamus because the “Beaudettes had no adequate alternative means to obtain the relief requested” and the Board of Veteran’s Appeals “has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine the types of appeals within its jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.