FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims addressing the Clean Water Act. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that it intends to sit in the Atlanta area as part of its October 2023 session. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims addressing entitlement to military disability retirement pay. The court also released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Four cases being argued in June at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is DiMasi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, a pro se vaccine case. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that a “Special Master’s denial of relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.” Notably, after the pro se petitioner filed informal briefs, the court issued an order appointing two attorneys to serve jointly as amicus curiae in support of the pro se petitioner’s appeal. Moreover, despite the fact that the petitioner is representing herself, the Federal Circuit has set the case for an oral argument. This is our argument preview.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing the Solicitor General’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in a case concerning inter partes review estoppel; and
• an article highlighting takeaways from a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit addressing analogousness of prior art references.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission and addressing claim construction, infringement, and invalidity. The court also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, a government contract case that attracted an amicus brief. This case concerns whether the federal government’s resort to unilateral price determinations under two F-16 Aircraft contracts constituted government claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. In particular, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government’s price modifications did not constitute government claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Mayer and Hughes, the court affirmed the Board’s judgment dismissing Lockheed Martin’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction. This is our opinion summary.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dixon v. United States, a tax case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Dixon’s claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Clevenger and Hughes, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. This is our opinion summary.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”