To recover a trademark infringer’s profit, must a trademark owner prove that the infringer acted willfully? On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., a case in which the Federal Circuit held that willfulness is a prerequisite to disgorgement of profits in trademark cases. Here is our argument preview.
Our third and final argument preview for January’s cases covers American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, a case that attracted two amicus briefs on each side. In March, 2018, President Trump relied upon Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862, to impose a 25% tariff on imported steel products. In this case, a panel of the Federal Circuit will address a challenge by importers and users of imported steel products that Section 232 is facially unconstitutional. The appellants, in particular, argue that Section 232 constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and violates the principles of separation of powers established by the Constitution. This case will be argued at the Federal Circuit tomorrow morning.
Tomorrow the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in Sanford Health Plan v. United States, a case presenting the question of whether health insurance companies may recover cost-sharing payments identified in the Affordable Care Act but never funded by Congress. Here is our argument preview.
This morning the Federal Circuit granted en banc rehearing in Sunpreme v. United States, a trade case. The en banc court simultaneously issued a new opinion in the case, vacating the panel’s decision and effectively reversing it in relevant part. We have the details.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued one order granting en banc rehearing in a trade case, two precedential opinions (one en banc opinion in the trade case and one panel opinion in a patent case), and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here is the text of the order, the introductions to the opinions, and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights two articles summarizing Oracle’s appeal of the government’s denial of its bid on the Pentagon’s Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, a plea for “clarity and a new approach” on patent eligibility in 2020, and two blog posts covering a recent defamation lawsuit related to a trademark case on appeal at the Federal Circuit.
This morning the Federal Circuit issued four opinions, two precedential and two nonprecedential. The precedential opinions came in a veterans case and a vaccine case, while the nonprecedential opinions came in an employment case and a patent case. Here are the introductions.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions related to waiver of the prevailing arguments made in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., non-obviousness, and argument-type prosecution history estoppel, two letters filed by the government in response to arguments related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., two amicus briefs in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. itself, and the denial of four petitions. We have the details.