This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contracts case, a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for writs of mandamus in two nonprecedential orders. Finally, the court granted a petition for a writ of mandamus in another nonprecedential order. The writ of mandamus vacates an order by the Western District of Texas to hold a patent case in its Waco Division rather than its Austin Division. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the orders.
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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.
This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a government contracts case and a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the International Trade Commission. The Federal Circuit also issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
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 The Federal Circuit also issued three nonprecedential opinions: one in a patent case, one in a case involving the Tucker Act, and one in a veterans case. Finally, the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a transfer of a patent case.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This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a design patent case; a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Court of Veterans Appeals; a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from the Merits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.
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.