FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new en banc petition has been filed, raising a question regarding the appropriateness of Rule 36 summary affirmances; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness-type double patenting; and the court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued two en banc opinions, one in a trade case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, and another in a government contract case, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States. Additionally, two petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases. One raises questions related to identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings. The other raises questions related to claim construction. Finally, a response was filed in opposition to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to estoppel and inter partes review. Here are the details.

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 Notably, the court also released an en banc nonprecedential order withholding issuance of the mandate through October 14 to allow the government time to petition the Supreme Court.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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit received two letters in the court’s pending en banc case involving President Trump. In addition, two petitions for en banc review were filed in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 52 evidentiary trials and patent eligibility, and the court denied a petition in another patent case raising questions related to invalidity. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a party filed its reply brief in a pending en banc case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition in a design patent case, and the court denied two petitions in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

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.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Tomorrow the court will hear oral argument in an en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Also, since our last update, the court received one new amicus brief in a design patent case, and it denied two petitions for en banc review in two utility patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions for en banc review filed in patent cases along with two new amicus briefs in a patent case and a takings case. Finally, the court recently denied one petition for en banc review in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, V.O.S. Selections filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Sixteen amicus briefs were also filed in that case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received three new petitions for en banc review in patent cases. Here are the details.