FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting President Trump’s tariffs case “will shape US economic policy for years to come—and its effects will reach far beyond tariffs”;
• an article discussing the “legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act”;
• an article indicating the Federal Circuit “clarified several important principles governing patent claim construction” in a series of decisions issued between March and August; and
• an article arguing “[t]he Commerce Department is mulling a change to the 235-year-old patent system that would impair American start-ups.”

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit announced that next month it will be relocating the court’s drop box and changing the times when it will be available. Here is the text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Last week the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Lesko v. United States, a federal employment law case. The case raises questions ultimately asking whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. This is our argument recap. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an errata to a precedential opinion. Here is a link to the errata.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. As for pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to what qualifies as a printed publication. Two new reply briefs were filed, one supporting a petition raising a question related to the Lanham Act and one supporting a petition raising a question related to the activities of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced proposed amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. Among other things, the amendments would add a new section permitting an eligible law student to enter an appearance on behalf of a party with the consent of the party and a supervising attorney, as well as appear on briefs and participate in oral arguments in appropriate circumstances. The amendments would also prohibit former court employees from disclosing to new employers or potential employers the list they receive of pending cases that they may not participate in or assist with after employment at the court. The announcement includes links to the proposed amendments and an email address to submit public comments. Here is a full text to the announcement along with links to the materials.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Both opinions come in patent cases, one an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one an appeal from a district court. The nonprecedential order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Monday and again yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced the launch of what it is calling the Federal Circuit Center for Innovation & Law. The announcement includes links to a website, an Instagram page, and a LinkedIn page. The website describes the Center as offering field trips for middle and high school students to experience “the connections between law, history, science, and technology.” Here is the full text of the announcement along with the links to the materials.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court heard oral argument in Lesko v. United States, an employment law case. Additionally, four new en banc petitions have been filed in patent cases raising questions related to the presumption of validity, eligibility, and claim construction. A new response was filed in a case concerning the appropriate test for design-patent infringement. Finally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two patent cases. Here are the details.