FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The opinion affirms the denial of a 100% disability rating. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article explaining how “[t]he Federal Circuit is poised to provide guidance in the coming year on two patent law issues that have befuddled district courts”;
• another article detailing how “the Federal Circuit (CAFC) . . . affirmed a district court’s ruling that Novartis’ U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 is not invalid” over a dissent by Chief Judge Moore;
• an article detailing how the Federal Circuit “denied Cisco’s bid to rehear a panel decision reinstating a $57 million enhanced damages award against . . . SRI International Inc. over cybersecurity patents”; and
• another article noting that the Federal Circuit “was the first federal appeals court to announce a switch to remote oral arguments for its January session in response to the spike in COVID-19 cases.”

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The opinion affirms the Court of International Trade’s calculation of an antidumping duty rate. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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.”