FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case addressing 35 U.S.C. § 145, which governs the shifting of fees in successful appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to federal district court to challenge the rejection of patent applications. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in a patent case and a government contract case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 six dispositions, one new case, one case with new briefing, and one oral argument recap. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, a precedential opinion in patent case, and a nonprecedential decision in a government contract case. Judge Newman dissented in the case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This past Wednesday the court heard oral argument 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 have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Judges Lourie, Prost, and O’Malley heard Wednesday’s argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case over a dissent by Judge O’Malley. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions, one in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims and the other in an appeal from a determination of the International Trade Commission in a patent dispute. Additionally, the court issued a nonprecedential order unsealing its opinion in the appeal from the International Trade Commission. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

CAFC Affirms Improper Venue Ruling in Victoria’s Secrets’ Favor – On IPWatchDog, Matthew Schutte posted an article reporting on a Federal Circuit decision to affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit based on improper venue.

Judge Albright will Keep the Google and Apple Cases – In a post on PatentlyO.com, Dennis Crouch offers his thoughts on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision not to order Judge Albright to transfer certain patent cases.

Arthrex-Based TTAB Challenge Meets Dubious Federal Circuit Panel – Kyle Jahner reports for Bloomberg that “[a] piano company trying to revive its trademark encountered a Federal Circuit skeptical of its argument.”

Shell, ARCO, Texaco, Unocal Win $100 Million WWII Cleanup Appeal – In this article on BloombergLaw.com, Daniel Seiden reports on the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Shell Oil Co. v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion affirming the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, and a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case. The court also issued three nonprecedential orders, including two orders in patent cases denying petitions for writs of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer the underlying cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit, with hearings starting this morning. This month the Federal Circuit is again providing access to live audio of each panel scheduled for argument via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. In total, the court will convene five panels to consider about 23 cases. Of these 23 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 17. Of the argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs. All four are Tucker Act cases presenting the same issues. Indeed, the court consolidated the cases, and they will be argued at same time with 40 minutes of argument allocated to each side. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Four cases that attracted amicus briefs are being argued at the Federal Circuit next week: Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, Cacciapalle v. United States, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States. 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 have now appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the lower court’s holdings. The Federal Circuit consolidated these cases for purposes of oral argument. Here is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a patent case over a partial dissent by Judge Dyk. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims in a tax case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.