FedCircuitBlog

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. Due to the heightened spread of the coronavirus, all January oral arguments will again be held remotely. As it has for some time now, however, the Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, including a case set to be argued next week, the court will convene 12 panels to consider about 54 cases. Of these 54 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 40. Of these argued cases, two attracted amicus briefs: one copyright case and one takings case. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This week we are previewing two arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these arguments because the underlying cases attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Milton v. United States, in which over 150 plaintiffs are appealing a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to grant summary judgement for the United States. These plaintiffs have asserted takings claims against the government based on properties being flooded by government action when the Addicks and Barker Reservoirs released water during Hurricane Harvey. An amicus brief was filed by 205 other plaintiffs with similar cases stayed at the Court of Federal Claims. This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

This week we are previewing two cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit. We are previewing these cases because they attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. In this copyright case, SAS Institute, Inc. appeals a decision from the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed SAS’s claim of copyright infringement by World Programming Ltd. SAS contends the district court incorrectly analyzed a copyrighted program and excluded witness testimony. Notably, ten amicus briefs were filed in this case, six of which support SAS and four of which support WPL. This is our argument preview.

In December, the court heard oral argument in Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a case arising from the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have been following this case because it attracted two amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc. MVA challenges a denial of rulemaking by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that would have sought to extend the presumption of herbicide exposure to veterans who served on Guam from January 9, 1962, through December 31, 1980; Johnston Island from January 1, 1972, until September 30, 1977; and American Samoa. Judges Newman, Prost, Cunningham heard last month’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment in a case appealed from the Northern District of California. Here is the link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article analyzing cases and an emerging trend regarding how “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners”;
• a blog post detailing how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference consider[ed] Judge Albright’s problematic patent court”;
• another blog post evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021”; and
• another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of [a government contract] award prejudiced it.”

In December, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Wolfe v. McDonough. We have been following this veterans case because it attracted three amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff-appellee, Wolfe. On appeal, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs asks the Federal Circuit to reverse the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which “granted a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Wolfe on behalf of a class of claimants to invalidate 38 C.F.R. § 17.1005(a)(5) and require [the Department of Veterans Affairs] to readjudicate and grant claims for reimbursement of coinsurance and deductibles.” Judges Dyk, Reyna, and Stoll heard last week’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The first opinion comes in a case addressing whether a petitioner could recover for injuries occurring after a vaccination. The second opinion comes in a tax refund suit and addresses the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the timeliness of the suit. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to the written description requirement. The court also received a new response to a different petition also raising a question related to the written description requirement. In addition, the court denied a petition for hearing en banc raising a question related to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of petitions for inter partes review. Here are the details.