This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the District of Delaware to vacate an order setting an evidentiary hearing. The Federal Circuit also released two orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.
The Federal Circuit today announced that its updated Rules of Practice are now available. Today’s announcement is consistent with the court’s previous announcement about its decision to defer adoption of certain amendments. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.
Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments in Adams v. United States, a federal benefits case. The arguments will address whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitles federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes. This is our argument preview.
The Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case decided by the Western District of Washington; two precedential opinions in cases addressing the Fair Labor Standards Act; and another precedential opinion addressing the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act and Back Pay Act. Notably, in the latter three cases, Judge Reyna filed dissenting opinions. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in cases involving the same appellant challenging decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, along with four orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the majority opinions, portions of the dissenting opinions, and links to the orders.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post about “requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership” in the District of Delaware;
- an article about overcoming dismissals under Section 101 of the Patent Act; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit’s decision “reject[ing] a tech company’s bid to transfer a patent case it is facing out of . . . Waco.”
Two cases being argued in December at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, which 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. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review 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. This is our argument preview.
This month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Uniloc sued Motorola for infringement of a patent that discloses pairing a telephone with another device and using the other device to make a call. The district court, however, denied Uniloc’s claim, finding that Uniloc did not hold all exclusionary rights to the patent in question for purposes of satisfying the requirement of standing. Uniloc appealed. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Lourie and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. This is our opinion summary.