FedCircuitBlog

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 three opinions: the first in an Equal Access to Justice Act case, the second granting petitions seeking writs of mandamus challenging orders of the Western District of Texas regarding transfer motions, and the third in a trademark case. We also highlight a response brief filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

On February 24, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Elster, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of a trademark registration, Elster argued the rejection violated of the Constitution’s First Amendment. In particular, Elster faulted section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which recites that “[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it . . . [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent . . . .” The United States argued that section 2(c) is constitutionally legal and applied correctly in this case. The Federal Circuit, however, found section 2(c) unconstitutional as applied here. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued six precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Virginia. The second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The third and fourth come in employment cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The fifth and sixth come in Tucker Act and tax cases respectively appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the court issues a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This past week, the court heard oral argument in In re Elster, an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We have been following this case because it attracted an amicus brief. On appeal, Elster argues a refusal of his trademark registration based on section 2(c) the Lanham Act violates of the Constitution’s First Amendment. Section 2(c) recites that “[n]o trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it . . . [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent . . . .” The United States argues that section 2(c) is constitutionally legal and applied correctly in this case. The amicus brief in this case was filed by Matthew Handel, an individual who says he has trademark applications similar to Elster. Judges Dyk, Taranto, and Chen heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting today. Arguments are being held in person absent granted motions for leave to appear remotely, and the Federal Circuit is also providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene 14 panels to consider about 59 cases. Of these 59 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 52. Of these argued cases, three attracted amicus briefs: an Equal Access to Justice Act case, a trademark case, and a tax case. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

This week we are previewing three cases scheduled to be argued next week at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight a trademark case, In re Elster. In this case, Elster asks the Federal Circuit to hold that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on any trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent” violates the Constitution’s First Amendment. This is our argument preview.