FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Dinh v. United States, a takings case that attracted an amicus brief. In this, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. That court held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Stoll, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 three new opinions, one in a case related to the rulemaking authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs, another in a takings case related to water rights, and another related to patents alleged to be improperly listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. We also highlight five new cases, two related to trade agreements, two related to takings claims, and one patent case. Finally, we note new briefing in a patent case we have been tracking. Here are the details.

This week (and next Monday) is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court originally scheduled 12 panels to hear 72 cases, with the plan to hear oral argument in 45 cases. Given the National Day of Mourning for President Carter, however, the court last week announced that it would not open on Thursday, canceling two panels. As always, the court provides access to live audio of its arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Four cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Dinh v. United States. In it, the Federal Circuit will review a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that, because Congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. This is our argument preview.