FedCircuitBlog

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.

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 four new cases: a takings case concerning a moratorium on eviction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, two new related patent cases, and a pro se case. Additionally, we highlight opinions in two patent cases. Further, the new takings case and pro se case are both set to be argued next month. Here are the details.

In early August, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In an opinion by Judge Reyna joined by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court. Judge Newman, however, filed a dissenting opinion. 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 opinions, two in takings cases and one in a vaccine case, and a summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. We also highlight reply brief in a patent case and oral arguments in two cases, a patent case and a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the details.

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 two new patent cases; opinions in a Clean Water Act case and a pro se case; a summary affirmance in a patent case; and oral arguments in a pro se case, a trade case, and two related patent cases. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Cooperman v. Social Security Administration, a pro se case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board that found “good cause to remove Mr. Cooperman from his position as an administrative law judge at the Social Security Administration.” In a per curiam opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Hughes, and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s judgment “[b]ecause the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and because the Board did not otherwise err in its analysis.” This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eleven panels to consider 50 cases this week. Of these 50 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 40. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. This case concerns whether the federal government’s resort to unilateral price determinations under two F-16 Aircraft contracts constituted government claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. In particular, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government’s price modifications did not constitute government claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Hughes, the court affirmed the Board’s judgment dismissing Lockheed Martin’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 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 an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.