FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, one in a patent case and one in a trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions, one in a Vaccine Act case and two in trade cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received two new petitions this week in Michelson v. Department of the Army and Sanders v. United States.
• Mylan submitted its brief in opposition to the Court in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..
• Finally, one waiver of right to respond was filed with the Court in Martin v. Department of Homeland Security by the Department of Homeland Security.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a government contract case and two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Another case that attracted an amicus brief and is being argued this month at the Federal Circuit is Albright v. United States, a consolidated takings case. In it, owners of land in Oregon assert that the United States Surface Transportation Board violated the Takings Clause by converting a railway easement to a recreational trail. As explained by the government, however, the Court of Federal Claims “determined that the [relevant] deeds conveyed fee simple title from Plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest to the railroads, such that Plaintiffs have no compensable property interest on which to base takings claims.” One of the property owners explains that the issue on appeal is “[w]hether the CFC correctly applied the law of the state of Oregon to determine whether certain conveyances from the early 1900s to a railroad conveyed the fee estate in the land or a perpetual easement for railroad purposes.” This is our argument preview.

• Sweat the Small Stuff: Lessons of Federal Circuit Damages Cases – Marking, interest accrual, and awards calculation have been important issues in six Federal Circuit decisions on patent damages, but the Federal Circuit has been reluctant to overturn jury awards in other damages cases.
• Standard Essentiality is a Question for the Fact Finder – Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communications Technology Holdings that the trier of fact should determine whether patent claims are essential to all implementations of an industry standard.
• The Little Tucker Act is Alive and Well – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States reaffirms to plaintiffs with small non-tort claims against the United States that they can file either in the Court of Federal Claims or in a local district court.

Here’s the latest.

Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writs of certiorari in (1) ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu, (2) SRAM, LLC v. FOX Factory, Inc., and (3) Halim v. United States.
• Aquesitive submitted a brief in opposition to the petition in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
• Two replies were submitted to the Court, the first by Smith & Nephew in Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and the second by TCL in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case we have been tracking because it attracted amicus briefs. In the opinion, a panel composed of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Taranto unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims that the Affordable Care Act “provision on reimbursement of cost-sharing reductions is ‘money-mandating’ and that the government is liable for money damages for its failure to make reimbursements for the 2017 reductions.” Here is a summary of the opinion.

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 five dispositions, three cases with new briefing, one recent oral argument, and two upcoming oral arguments.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in Tucker Act cases and one nonprecedential order denying a writ of mandamus. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.