FedCircuitBlog

In December the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in City of Fresno v. United States, a takings case that attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims and a grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States. Parties to the California Central Valley Project sued the United States claiming they were entitled to water the United States failed to distribute after a drought in 2014. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal and grant of summary judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board involving claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week (and next Monday) is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court originally scheduled 12 panels to hear 72 cases, with the plan to hear oral argument in 45 cases. Given the National Day of Mourning for President Carter, however, the court last week announced that it would not open on Thursday, canceling two panels. As always, the court provides access to live audio of its arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

This evening the Federal Circuit announced that it will be closed tomorrow, January 6, due to inclement weather and that it will conduct tomorrow’s proceedings by remote videoconferencing. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case and seven nonprecedential orders. One of the orders remands a case, and the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and remand order and links to the dismissals.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled for oral argument at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Marmen Inc. v. United States. In this case, Marmen appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final antidumping duty determination that assigned a dumping margin on Marmen, a Canadian wind tower producer. This is our argument preview.

As we have been reporting, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is HMTX Industries LLC v. United States. In this case, HMTX challenges the Court of International Trade’s decision to uphold a proposed increase in tariffs on goods originating in China. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, Judge Stoll dissented from the majority’s decision to reverse a final written description that had declined to hold certain patent claims invalid as obvious. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, a patent case that attracted seven amicus briefs. In this case, Amneal alleged that Teva delayed the entry of generic products into the market by improperly listing certain patents in the Orange Book. The District of New Jersey agreed and required Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed, and the Federal Circuit stayed the lower courts order pending its resolution of the appeal. Late last month, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Taranto and Hughes, the Federal Circuit lifted the stay and affirmed the district court’s delisting order. This is our opinion summary.

As we highlighted yesterday, four cases scheduled to be argued in January at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is United Water Conservation District v. United States. In this case, United Water Conservation District appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its takings claim. The court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. This is our argument preview.