FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released six precedential opinions, six nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, three come in patent cases, while one comes in an antidumping trade case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two come in cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed, one raising questions related to claim construction and Rule 36 summary affirmances and one raising questions related to awards of attorneys’ fees and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases, one raising a question related to claim construction and one raising questions related to Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and five Rule 36 judgments. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders are dismissals of appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article reporting how Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power’”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy”;
• a blog post discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development”; and
• an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.”

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today in recognition of Columbus Day. Enjoy the long holiday weekend!

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board and addresses whether the Office of Personnel Management may divide a retiree’s annuity supplement if the division of the supplement is not expressly provided for in a court order. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article predicting the Supreme Court will “treat the president’s newfound tariff power much like . . . previous executive actions that ‘discover’ new authority in vague statutes—and strike it down”;
• an article arguing the President’s foreign affairs power “does not give the president any authority over tariffs beyond what Congress clearly delegates”;
• a blog post discussing what the author describes as a “disturbing and inexplicable trend—a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches”; and
• an article reporting how Judge Newman’s counsel said in a recent filing that “[t]he government shutdown is no excuse to halt proceedings” in her case “for reinstatement to the Federal Circuit.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and five Rule 36 judgments. Three of the opinions come in appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office involving the same parties involved in inter partes review proceedings. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in President Trump’s case addressing his tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a trademark case, a new amicus brief was filed in a patent case, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases, and thirteen petitions were denied by the Supreme Court in cases raising questions related to patent law, the Lanham Act, military disability retirement benefits, and due process. Here are the details.