FedCircuitBlog

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Court of International Trade. That court held that certain actions of the U.S. Trade Representative did not exceed statutory authority and satisfied requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Hughes authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment of the Court of International Trade. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order granting a motion for judgment of affirmance without opinion. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from the Court of International Trade and includes a concurring opinion. The nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Today’s order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and order granting the motion for judgment of affirmance without opinion, along with links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the presumption of validity. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition for rehearing en banc in a patent case that asked the court to review questions related to claim construction. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both come in pro se cases. One comes in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are their introductions.

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

• an article indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%”;
• an article discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it;
• a blog post arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112”; and
• an article suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a denial of a petition for rulemaking to establish criteria to limit the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to institute inter partes or post-grant review under the America Invents Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a series of inter partes review proceedings decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article arguing “the legal case against the Trump tariffs is strong”;
• a blog post indicating there has been a trend of “increased willingness of the Federal Circuit to reject jury verdicts, especially in situations involving potentially inadequate expert testimony”;
• an article reporting how, “[o]n the same day the federal government shut down, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would permanently close its Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office in Denver”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office laid off some employees . . . affecting around 1% of the agency’s workforce.”

As we have been reporting this week, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal numerous rulings by a district court, including rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation. This is our argument preview.