FedCircuitBlog

Late today, by a vote of 7-4, the Federal Circuit decided V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of International Trade that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders.” The Federal Circuit, however, also vacated the lower court’s permanent universal injunction and remanded the case for the lower court “to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief.” The Federal Circuit explained its decision in a forty-five page per curiam opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark. Judge Cunningham filed a separate opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stark expressing additional views. Judge Taranto authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Chen. They “disagree[d] with the majority’s conclusion on the issue of the tariffs’ legality.” Notably, the court also released an en banc nonprecedential order withholding issuance of the mandate through October 14 to allow the government time to petition the Supreme Court. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Only one case scheduled for oral argument in September attracted an amicus brief. That case is an employment law case, Lesko v United States. It raises questions concerning how “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) should be interpreted after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and ultimately whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. After a panel of the court heard oral argument, the court voted sua sponte for en banc consideration. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses prosecution laches and Article III jurisdiction. This is the court’s second time hearing the case, following an earlier decision in 2021. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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

• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . denied Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revive her constitutional challenge to the judicial misconduct law under which her colleagues suspended her and are continuing to probe her fitness to serve”;
• a blog post indicating a recent petition at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit “presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation”; and
• a commentary addressing a new policy adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that “limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released an en banc precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The en banc opinion addresses the law governing standing to file a bid protest in a government contract dispute. Judge Hughes authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and six other judges. Notably, Judge Hughes authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by three other judges. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update three new petitions have been filed. One presents questions related to the Lanham Act, one presents a question related to patent law, and one comes in a pro se case. Two waivers of right to respond to petitions have been filed. One comes in a trademark case, and one comes in a patent case. A brief in opposition was filed in a case presenting a question related to the Lanham Act, and an amicus brief was filed in the same 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 vaccine case and a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case. The court also released an errata and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions in cases appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. One is a trademark case, and the other is a patent case. Notably, Judge Lourie dissented in the trademark case. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. One was in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one was in an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website today.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a patent infringement case appealed from the International Trade Commission and one in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.