FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; a precedential order denying a petition for panel and en banc rehearing in an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over a dissent by Judge Wallach; and a nonprecedential erratum correcting a typographical error in an opinion issued in trade case yesterday. Here is the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

• Federal Circuit Sheds Light on the Test for ‘Analogous Art’ in an IPR – Tom BenGera discusses the Federal Circuit’s recent opinion in Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC.
• Covered Business Method Threshold Review Is Not Appealable – The Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for covered business method (CBM) review is not appealable.

Here’s the latest.

The fourth case being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs is a patent case entitled MLC Intellectual Property LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a district court’s rulings related to damages law and expert testimony. In particular, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the district court erroneously excluded evidence of comparable license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule during a Georgia-Pacific reasonable royalty analysis. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

The Supreme Court received petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) Frederick Demond Wilson v. United States, (2) David O. Keel, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, (3) Chris Jaye v. United States, (4) B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., and (5) adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Several amicus briefs were filed in United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

This week we are previewing four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a veterans case, Rudisill v. Wilkie. In this case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing it “misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein [related to educational assistance benefits] do not apply to Mr. Rudisill because he had multiple periods of qualifying service.” This is our argument preview.

The Federal Circuit did not publish any opinions or orders this morning.

The Federal Circuit released an announcement today concerning two updates. First, the court announced that its Rules of Practice have been updated to reflect amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40. Second, the court announced increases to various miscellaneous court fees. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a judgment by the Court of Federal Claims rejecting takings claims based on a so-called “rails-to-trails” conversion. Here is the introduction to the opinion.