FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing how “President Trump on Friday said a potential U.S. court ruling denying his authority to impose a wide range of global tariffs could have devastating impacts on the US economy”;
• a post on highlighting how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has thrown out tens of thousands of applications and registrations for trademarks prepared by a Chinese company that allegedly forged signatures and doled out legal advice despite not having the training to do so”;
• a piece describing how a “memo last week to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board specif[ied] that petitioners for inter partes review must link all limitations to prior art, without relying on expert testimony or ‘general knowledge’”;
• an article covering how “[t]he electronic case filing system used by the federal judiciary has been breached in a sweeping cyber intrusion that is believed to have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states”; and
• an article examining how “[t]he Trump administration on Friday ordered a comprehensive review of Harvard University’s federally funded research programs, and threatened to take title to or grant licenses from the school’s lucrative portfolio of patents.”

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah, two nonprecedential opinions in pro se cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order transferring a case to the Ninth Circuit along with four other nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the transfer and dismissals.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two new opinions, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions in decisions appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the court released two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 summary affirmances and dismissal.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump’s argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs”;
• a piece highlighting how Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart “addressed rumors that the Trump administration is considering a new fee on the values of patents”;
• an article describing how Acting Director Stewart said the USPTO would no longer waive a statutory requirement that petitions for inter partes review “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied on”;
• a piece covering how the USPTO “is ramping up its internal generative AI tools and is preparing to roll out an AI training portal ‘very soon’ to help the workforce become more comfortable using GenAI”; and
• a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit “recently expanded its doctrine associated with specification changes in family member patent applications—using minor changes in the specification [to] justify differing claim construction across a patent family.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions in three other patent cases appealed from the PTAB. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 summary affirmance in another patent case and two additional nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court heard oral argument in the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs, and the court denied three petitions for en banc review, two in patent cases and one in a takings case. Notably, in the denial in one of the patent cases, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll issued a concurring opinion and Judges Dyk and Hughes issued a dissenting opinion. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new petition was filed in a pro se case involving a former patent examiner. Also, responses were requested in two patent cases both presenting the same question related to the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to conduct administrative adjudications. Here are the details.

On July 31, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, an en banc case involving challenges to the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. We have been monitoring this case both because it is being considered en banc and because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. This is our argument recap.