FedCircuitBlog

The Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument tomorrow in three cases challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that various health insurance companies cannot obtain damages under the Tucker Act for subsidies that were identified in the Affordable Care Act but that Congress later declined to appropriate. The three cases are Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in a government contract case and a veterans case. The court also issued five Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Does the patent statute permit patent owners to appeal decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board that petitions for inter partes review were not filed late? Or, under the statute, are these decisions simply unreviewable? The Supreme Court will tackle these questions on Monday, when it will hear argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights recent news about the government’s plan to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, the government’s lack of filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in Athena v. Mayo, and the Federal Circuit’s recent denial of en banc rehearing in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company.

The Federal Circuit issued four opinions today. It issued precedential opinions in a patent case and a veterans case, and nonprecedential opinions in another veterans case and a personnel case.

Notably, the patent case is TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, a case we have been watching because it attracted a significant number of amicus briefs, as discussed previously on this blog. In short, in that case the Federal Circuit agreed with Ericsson that the district court should have held a jury trial on the appropriate “release payment” owed Ericsson for a license to Ericsson’s portfolio of standard-essential patents. By resolving the case in this manner, the court found no need to address the various issues raised in the amicus briefs about the proper calculation of payments for licenses to standard-essential patents.

Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, various briefs were filed in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. and Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. In addition, one new pro se petition was filed, along with two new amicus briefs in other cases. Here are the details.

The only case argued this week at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief was Monk v. Wilkie, a case in which nine veterans sought class certification to assert claims of unreasonable system-wide delay by the Board of Veterans Appeals in deciding appeals of denials of veterans’ claims. In our argument preview, we highlighted how the case attracted four amicus briefs, all in favor of the veterans, whose request for class certification was denied by an evenly divided en banc Court of Veterans Appeals. On Monday, the parties presented oral arguments to a panel of Federal Circuit including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Reyna. Here is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case brought under the Tucker Act, two nonprecedential opinions in appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and a nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions, a response to a petition, and an amicus brief in support of a petition.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case and a nonprecedential opinion in case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.