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.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order in a patent case denying panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, and his opinion was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Newman. In the dissenting judges’ view, the panel decision confused patent law’s written description requirement. In addition to this order, the court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning attorneys’ fees. Finally, late yesterday the court issued a nonprecedential order concerning a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued five Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

On February 22, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, and Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, cases that attracted amicus briefs. In these cases, the plaintiffs asserted claims at the Court of Federal Claims based on government actions related to the 2008 financial crisis and ownership of shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As explained by the Court of Federal Claims in one of the cases, the “plaintiffs seek the return of money illegally exacted, damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, and compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” The Court of Federal Claims, however, dismissed these claims, finding it “lacks jurisdiction to entertain their fiduciary duty and implied-in-fact-contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their claims.” The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases and issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, six amicus briefs were filed in George v. McDonough, a case raising a question related to clear and unmistakable error in the context of review of denials of veterans’ claims for benefits. As for still-pending petitions, one new petition was filed by a pro se petitioner; two amicus briefs were filed in a case related to patent eligibility, including a brief filed by a former Federal Circuit judge; and two reply briefs were filed: one in a veterans case and one in a trade case. Finally, four waivers of right to respond were filed and the Court denied a petition in a case concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a new petition raising questions related to assignments of patents and standing and a new response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. The court also requested a reply from a petitioner in support of its combined petition, which raised questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied two petition raising questions related to the standard of review for a grant or denial of a preliminary injunction and claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed a finding by the Court of Federal Claims that a lawsuit seeking a refund on paid taxes was not timely filed. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases appealed, respectively, from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Northern District of Ohio. The third comes in a Tucker Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, in this third case Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Guest Post by Dr. Christal Sheppard

I am a patent law expert. However, a look at recent machinations in patent law, particularly in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) leadership and the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), reveals that many of the issues at the heart of patent law disputes stem from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), administrative law, constitutional law, and, of course, politics, politics, politics. As a patent expert, I have found myself talking about the APA so often that I unconsciously write Administrative Patent Act by mistake. The United States Supreme Court decision in Arthrex, regarding the composition of PTAB, is the most recent foray into the intersection of administrative law and patent law.1

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of New York. The second comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning its jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.