Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative”;
- an article detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit”;
- a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims”; and
- an article reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.”
Ann E. Marimow and Adam Liptak authored an article for The New York Times reporting how “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative.” As explained by Marimow and Liptak, “[i]n a 7-to-4 ruling in late August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the president had unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose steep taxes on major U.S. trading partners.” In the article, the authors note that “the tariffs case will be the first occasion for the justices to hear arguments and weigh the underlying legal merits of a key administration priority.” For more information, check out our breaking news post and the relevant case page in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
Theresa Schliep authored an article for Law360 detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit.” According to Schliep, “a three-judge panel found that Realtek became the prevailing party in the case due to Judge Albright’s decision to transform Future Link Systems LLC’s voluntary dismissal of its suit to a dismissal with prejudice.” In the article, Schliep explains how “there’s a line of Federal Circuit precedent indicating that dismissals with prejudice make a defendant in such a case a prevailing party, since such dismissals prove that the defendant successfully fended off a lawsuit.” For more information, check out the opinion in Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims.” Crouch suggests “[o]ne problem with the decision is its non-precedential status – even though it clearly breaks new ground.” He also indicates “[o]ne oddity of the Court’s decision is that it did not discuss broadest reasonable interpretation.” In the post, Crouch emphasizes that “BRI should not be treated as a mechanical maxim, but as a methodology of testing patentability against alternative plausible constructions.” For more information, check out the opinion in In re McFadden.
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.” In the article, Shapiro highlights how a district judge, who sat by designation at the Federal Circuit, wrote that the “argument to the jury [that a plaintiff] needed actual test samples to prove infringement was both ‘improper and prejudicial.’” For more information, check out the opinion in Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66.