FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a Tucker Act case and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here is the introduction to the opinion and text from the order.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight five dispositions, two new cases, two cases with new briefing, and one upcoming oral argument. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued an important order granting a motion to vacate and remand in In re Boloro Global Ltd., a case we have been following. In the order, the court extended the application of Arthrex to ex parte patent examination appeals, determining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed in this context (in addition to inter partes review as in Arthrex). Here is a summary of the case and the order.  

On Wednesday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sellers v. Wilkie, another case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, a Federal Circuit panel (including Judges Dyk, Clevenger, and Hughes) unanimously reversed and remanded the lower court’s ruling granting benefits to a veteran. Here is a summary of the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in veterans cases; one nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case; one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case; and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hardy v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case the government challenged a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims that a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) amounted to a taking of private property. In the opinion, a panel of the court (including Judges Newman, Lourie, and Stoll) unanimously affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. While the panel agreed with the lower court that Hardy has a compensable property interest, it vacated and remanded because the trial court did not focus on the relevant inquiry in analyzing the case. Here is a summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This month the Federal Circuit scheduled oral argument in one case that attracted an amicus brief, Amgen Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, Amgen, a patent owner, asked the Federal Circuit to force a district court to vacate its judgment of non-infringement in favor of a consent judgment of infringement. The Federal Circuit, however, never heard oral argument. This is our update in place of our normal argument recap.

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

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received one new petition for writ of certiorari this week in the patent case Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Both the Honorable Randall R. Rader and High 5 Games submitted two new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner to the Court in the petition The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Here are the details.