Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling that President “Trump does not have the authority to use emergency economic powers to impose taxes on imports”;
- an article reporting how Judge “Newman’s fellow active judges who make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council voted unanimously to keep her from hearing new cases”;
- a blog post commenting on a recent Federal Circuit decision reversing a district court’s finding with respect to unenforceability due to prosecution laches; and
- an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit opinion that vacated a refusal to register the f-word as a trademark.
Jacob Bogage and Emily Davies authored an article for the Washington Post discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling that President “Trump does not have the authority to use emergency economic powers to impose taxes on imports.” The authors explain how “[t]he ruling is a major setback for the White House and . . . threatens to stall much of Trump’s second-term agenda,” but they also note how “[t]he White House could find a number of ways to get around the ruling even without a victory at the Supreme Court.” For more information on the ruling, check out our breaking news post and the relevant case page in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how Judge “Newman’s fellow active judges who make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council voted unanimously to keep her from hearing new cases.” As explained by Shapiro, the Council issued the order after the D.C. Circuit dismissed a lawsuit Judge Newman filed to challenge her suspension. In the article, Shapiro explains how Judge “Newman had argued for reinstatement in the past year, and presented a report that included a brain scan as evidence of her fitness,” but the Judicial Counsel’s order noted that “such brain scans are not standard in the field today for assessing cognitive impairment.”
Eileen McDermott wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog commenting on a recent Federal Circuit decision reversing a district court’s finding with respect to unenforceability due to prosecution laches. As explained by McDermott, the Federal Circuit held “that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Google was prejudiced by Sonos’ alleged delay in claiming the subject matter at issue via continuation practice.” According to McDermott, however, the court “largely dodged the question . . . and does little to solve the broader problems.” McDermott quotes IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn as saying that “the Federal Circuit approach to prosecution laches is unquestionably wrong, and that remains unchanged after this decision.” For more information, check out our coverage of Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
An article posted on The Fashion Law highlights a recent Federal Circuit opinion that vacated a refusal to register the f-word as a trademark. According to the post, the “ruling is less about free speech and more about administrative clarity.” The post suggests in its opinion “the court has signaled that even provocative terms . . . deserve a principled analysis.” Moreover, the post indicates that, “[f]or fashion and consumer brands, the outcome will shape how far they can push language in branding.” For more information, read the opinion in In re Brunetti.