Appeals to the Circuit Court

Determinations of the EAB can be appealed to the District Court in Washington, D.C. or any other district in which the respondent resides or transacts business. The District Court will only review the EAB s decision to determine if it was arbitrary and capricious. Rogers Corp. v. E.P.A °  

---

The district court rejected Quilici s suit Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 532 F. Supp. 1169 [N.D. III. 1981]). The plaintiffs then appealed to the circuit court. 

In both cases, the district courts of appeals ruled that the background check provision was unconstitutional, though other parts of the law (such as the waiting period) could remain in force. However, federal attorneys appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the background checks were constitutional. The sheriffs appeals, now combined, came to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Besides medical necessity, the appeal to the circuit court also argued that because the women were growing marijuana within the state (and were thus not involved in interstate commerce), the federal Controlled Substances Act should not apply to their activities. 

The majority opinion rejected claims by the government that use of the imager was permissible because it only detected heat from off the wall and did not penetrate through the wall. It also rejected the idea that the limited amount of information obtained should be a criterion for whether a search violates the Fourth Amendment. The case was therefore returned to the Circuit Court of Appeals to determine if evidence other than that obtained from imagery was sufficient to have obtained a warrant. 

In November 2001, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court s affirmance of FDA s decision to consider Bristol s September 11 listing untimely and to grant final approval to IVAX. Moreover, the Court of Appeals ordered the FDA to vacate its approval of IVAX s ANDA, effective January 24, 2002. This never occurred, however, because Bristol decided against relisting the 331 patenC following the January 11, 2002 decision by the district court holding that the asserted patents... 

The district court rejected both the strict product liability and the ultrahazardous activity theory in Perkins s suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the gun manufacturer. In a similar case, Richman v. Charter Arms Corp. (involving a robbery, rape, and murder committed using a. 38 caliber handgun), the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on product liability but not on ultrahazardous activity. The two cases were then combined in an appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth District. 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to determine whether the device used was intrusive. The district court concluded that because the device showed only a crude image of heat sources and did not show any people or activity within the walls of the structure, use of the device was not intrusive. The Court of Appeals evenmally affirmed the district court s opinion, and Kyllo appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Circuit Court panel, by a 2-1 vote, ruled that the Controlled Substances Act was intended to apply to interstate commercial trafficking in illicit drugs. It did not apply to drugs produced entirely within a state for personal medical purposes. The panel ordered the case returned to the district court for final determination, with a preliminary injunction issued barring enforcement of the CSA. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors appealed to a full panel of the Ninth Circuit. 

Hernandez sued the company, claiming that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) did not allow discrimination against rehabilitated alcohol or substance abusers. The district court dismissed the suit, but it was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Raytheon s blanket policy did not shield it from the obligation not to discriminate against former drug abusers. The company was obligated to take Hernandez s protected status (as disabled) into account and could not deliberately avoid learning about that status. The court ruled that the case should go to trial to determine whether Hernandez had been discriminated against. Raytheon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

December 16 The Ninth Circuit federal court of appeals rules that Congress lacks the power under the Interstate Commerce clause to prevent California patients from growing marijuana for personal medical use. The government is expected to appeal to the U.8. bupreme Court. 

From a procedural standpoint, unfavorable patent decisions by USPTO examiners (e.g., rejected patent claims/applications) can be appealed to the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board). If the outcome at the Board is unfavorable to the applicant then the applicant may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Unfavorable decisions from the CAFC may be further appealed by petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.6 While patent appeals from the Board to the CACF may be made as a matter of right, appeals from the CAFC to the Supreme Court are not. Due to the Supreme Court s broad jurisdiction and very limited capacity to hear cases, only a very small percent of cases that are appealed (approximately 1%) are heard (so good luck ).7 Patent litigation on the other hand involves the enforcement of patents that have already... 

Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit. Here the court sustained the judgment of the trial court as to the product claims already held valid, and, in addition, reversed the trial court by holding claims 1 to 9, 11 to 18, 20, 22 to 24, 26, and 27 valid, though not infringed, and to this extent, reversed the decision of the trial court. Presumably the claims not mentioned had not been sued upon. 

The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has its own court of appeals. With the Federal Courts Improvement Act ("FCIA") of 1982 (167), the U.S. Congress created the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and vested it with exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. One of its objectives in doing so was to promote uniformity in the area of patent law and diminish the uncertainty created by inconsistent application of the patent law among the regional circuits (168). The Federal Circuit also hears appeals of patent matters from the PTO, the Court of Federal Claims, and the ITC, as well as appeals of a variety of nonpatent matters. Matters involving issues of patent law make up a substantial portion of the Court s docket, and the Court is considered to have specialized expertise in the patent area. 

Either party may appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Once the EPA issues an order after a hearing, the losing party can appeal to the Federal Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, or any other Circuit... 

Any employee or employer adversely affected or aggrieved by an order issued under subsection (b) of this section may obtain review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation, with respect to which the order was issued, allegedly occurred. The petition for review must be filed within sixty days from the issuance of the Secretary s order. 

IN GENERAL—An appeal may by taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or hnal judgment, decree, or order issned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eederal Circuit ruling npon the constitutionality of section 309 or 320. 

Cases under Theory 1 In February 2009, special masters of the US Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on general causation and three test cases under this theory. All three test cases were appealed to judges of the CFC and all three were affirmed in July and August, 2009. Two of the three test cases, Hazlehurst and Cedillo, were then appealed to the Federal Circuit On 13 May 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its decision in Hazlehurst. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the HHS. The Hazlehurst family may next seek review by the Supreme Court. On 27 August 2010 the US Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Cedillo s petition for compensation. 

In July 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the challenged portions of the rule. When it made its decision, the Court invited any of the parties to request either that the current standards remain intact or that U.S. EPA be allowed time to publish interim standards. Acting on this initiative, U.S. EPA and the other parties jointly asked the Court for additional time to develop interim standards, and the Court granted this request. On February 13, 2002, U.S. EPA published these interim standards that temporarily replace the vacated... 

U.S. EPA promulgated MACT standards for most HWCs on September 30, 1999. These emission standards created a technology-based national cap for HAP emission from the combustion of hazardous waste in these devices. A number of parties, representing both industrial and environmental communities, requested judicial review of this rule, and challenged its emission standards and several implementation provisions. On July 24,2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the emission standards however, it allowed EPA to promulgate interim standards that were in place since February 13, 2002. U.S. EPA issued the new Final Rule and standards on April 20, 2004. Today s standards30 31 shown in Tables 23.5 and 23.6 result from the above judiciary and regulatory actions. 

---