FedCircuitBlog

Last week the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in four cases that attracted amicus briefs. In one of these cases, Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions: one in a veterans case and one in an international trade case. The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential order denying a motion to stay a final judgment of the Court of International Trade pending an appeal over a dissent by Judge Taranto; and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order; and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.

This week the Federal Circuit will convene 15 panels to consider about 69 cases. This month, as in the past several months, the court will hear all of its oral arguments telephonically given the coronavirus pandemic. The court will hear oral arguments in 39 of the 69 cases. Of these argued cases, four attracted amicus briefs: one in a takings case, two in patent cases, and one in a veterans case. Here’s what you need to know about these cases.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion addressing jurisdiction in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board; a precedential order denying a petition for panel and en banc rehearing in an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board over a dissent by Judge Wallach; and a nonprecedential erratum correcting a typographical error in an opinion issued in trade case yesterday. Here is the introductions to the opinions and text from the erratum.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade in an antidumping case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

As we reported this morning, earlier today the Federal Circuit decided Albright v. United States, a takings case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Chief Judge Prost authored today’s unanimous panel opinion affirming the Court of Federal Claim’s conclusion that the federal government did not commit any taking under the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the courts agreed that, when the government converted a particular railroad line into a recreational trail, no taking occurred because at that time the plaintiffs-appellants did not have a property interest in the railroad line. Their predecessors-in-interest, the courts ruled, did not grant easements to the railroad line but, instead, “fee simple absolute title” ownership of the land in question. This is our opinion summary.

Four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One is Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States. In this case, former owners of bump-fire type rifle stocks assert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives committed a taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In particular, the former owners contend the ATF committed either a physical or regulatory taking by using its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of bump-fire rifle stocks. The former owners allege they complied with the ATF’s legislative rule requiring abandonment and did not receive just compensation in return. The former owners argue that the decision by the Court of Federal Claims dismissing their action should be reversed. This is our argument preview.

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 one disposition in a veterans case, new briefs filed in two patent cases raising due process questions related to post grant review proceedings, four recent oral arguments in veterans and government contracts cases, and four upcoming oral arguments in patent, veterans, and takings cases.

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

• The Supreme Court received three new petitions for writ of certiorari in (1) InfoBionic, Inc. v. Cardionet, LLC, (2) Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC v. Iancu, and (3) Kinghorn v. United States.
• Two new responses to petitions were filed with the Court, the first by the Alfred E. Mann Foundation in Cochlear Corp. v. Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, and the second by the government in ThermoLife International LLC v. Iancu.
• One new reply to the petition in Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC was filed with the Court by Rovi.
• Three amicus briefs were filed in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., all in support of Idenix.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari in three cases: (1) IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corp., (2) Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc., and (3) Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.

Here are the details.