FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case and vacates a summary judgment of inequitable conduct and a summary judgment of no Walker Process fraud. The nonprecedential opinion comes in another patent case and affirms a summary judgement of patent ineligibility. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case. In it, Titanium appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. This is our argument preview.

One of the four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March that attracted amicus briefs is Bruyea v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims, which allowed an American citizen residing in Canada to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit released its opinion earlier this month in In re United States, a companion case to another case also styled In re United States, decided the same day in a separate opinion. This trade case attracted four amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit considered the International Trade Commission’s appeal from a denial by the Court of International Trade of a motion. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the panel dismissed the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found claims not unpatentable. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider a petition for inter partes review without relying on consideration of “settled expectations.” The other order is a dismissal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the order denying the petition along with a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, two petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed with the Federal Circuit in patent cases, raising questions related to judicial estoppel, appellate procedure, and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in In re United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a petition by the International Trade Commission for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of International Trade to retain the confidentiality of questionnaire responses and to permit the Commission to continue its practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit affirmed the order of the CIT. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case addressing eligibility on appeal from a district court. Of the denials of petitions, three relate to petitions seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate non-institution decisions on petitions for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with links to the dismissals.