Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. With respect to pending petitions, since our last update new petitions were filed in a takings case and in two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and three pro se cases; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.
Granted Cases
Since our last update, President Trump filed and the Supreme Court granted a petition seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. In that decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize President Trump’s recent tariffs. The petition presented the following questions:
- “Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Pub. L. No. 95-223, Tit. II, 91 Stat. 1626, authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Trump pursuant to the national emergencies declared or continued in Proclamation 10,886 and Executive Orders 14,157, 14,193, 14,194, 14,195, and 14,257, as amended.”
- “If IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President.”
Pending Petitions
New Petitions
Since our last update, new petitions have been filed in the following cases decided by the Federal Circuit.
The City of Fresno filed a petition in City of Fresno v. United States presenting the following questions:
- “Whether in accordance with Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 372, the beneficial users of Reclamation Project irrigation water have compensable water-property rights under the Fifth Amendment.”
- “Whether Reclamation’s refusal to release available water for growers’ use is a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.”
In Bradberry v. Department of the Air Force and Parenteau v. United States, pro se parties filed petitions.
Waiver of Right to Respond
Since our last update, parties filed five waivers of the right to respond to petitions in the following cases:
- R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. Altria Client Services LLC (patent)
- CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC (patent)
- Lee v. Department of the Army (pro se)
- Mallonee v. Department of the Interior (pro se)
- Baker v. Social Security Administration (pro se)
Amicus Briefs
Since our last update, an amicus brief was filed in MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Filed by the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), the brief supports MSN Pharmaceuticals.
The petition asked the Court to consider:
- “Whether, in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act.”
In its brief, AAM argues “the Federal Circuit’s decision conflicts with its own precedents” and “the precedents of [the Supreme Court] regarding the requirements for patentability under Section 112 of the Patent Act.” According to AAM, the decision “allowed Novartis to interpret its claims broadly to block generic competitors’ products, but then narrowly to avoid invalidity under Section 112, in contravention of settled law that requires claims to be construed the same way for both infringement and validity.” AAM suggests the Court should grant review becase “(1) the Federal Circuit applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating written description; (2) the Federal Circuit should not have sua sponte changed a claim construction that no party appealed; and (3) the decision undermines the notice function of patents and hinders competition in contravention of the public policies embedded in the Patent Act.”