FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion.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 The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims.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This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and five Rule 36 judgments.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.

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.