FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week there is little to report on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court denied one petition in a pro se case. That’s it!

Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a nonprecedential opinion in a Tucker Act case, and a precedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.

• Sweat the Small Stuff: Lessons of Federal Circuit Damages Cases – Marking, interest accrual, and awards calculation have been important issues in six Federal Circuit decisions on patent damages, but the Federal Circuit has been reluctant to overturn jury awards in other damages cases.
• Standard Essentiality is a Question for the Fact Finder – Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communications Technology Holdings that the trier of fact should determine whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard.
• The Little Tucker Act is Alive and Well – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States reaffirms to plaintiffs with small non-tort claims against the United States that they can file either in the Court of Federal Claims or in a local district court.

Here’s the latest.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Next week is argument week at the Federal Circuit, and two cases slated to be argued attracted amicus briefs. A patent case, Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, drew interest from both the Aimed Alliance and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) on the issue of non-obviousness. In this case, Amarin, a patent owner, asks the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s judgment of obviousness based on alleged erroneous use of hindsight. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions in a veterans case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

• Qualcomm Urges Fed Circuit to Keep PTAB Win Against Apple – Arguing that Apple is now trying to “manufacture a legal issue,” Qualcomm maintains that the PTAB correctly upheld its patent on a touch-screen function that allows users to toggle between multiple windows.
• CAFC Affirms Sanctions Entered Against Overly Litigious Doctors – Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court decision in Kahn v. Hemisphere Inc, which involved an action for patent infringement regarding an arteriovenous shunt.
• Government Reliance on Waiver Argument to Keep Price Adjustment Windfall Fails – In articulating limits to the government’s ability to rely on the waiver doctrine to enforce Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) provisions of questionable legality, the Federal Circuit in effect challenges the government’s approach to measuring the impact of cost accounting practices changes.

Here’s the latest.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.