FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed, one raising questions related to claim construction and Rule 36 summary affirmances and one raising questions related to awards of attorneys’ fees and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases, one raising a question related to claim construction and one raising questions related to Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.

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.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in two related cases. Both petitions raise questions related to the law governing motions to transfer venue. The Federal Circuit also denied three petitions for en banc hearing raising questions concerning the identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings, estoppel based on inter partes review, and the test for design patent infringement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, with respect to granted petitions we have posted an opinion summary for a government contract case and an argument recap for a case addressing federal personnel law. With respect to pending petitions, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed, one raising a question related to claim construction and one a question related to prosecution history estoppel. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two patent cases, one raising a question related to patent eligibility and one raising questions related to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Percipient.AI, INC. v. United States. In this case, Percipient.ai appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its bid protest for lack of standing. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Chen, Cunningham, and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Notably, Judge Stoll filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Taranto. This is our opinion summary.

Last week the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Lesko v. United States, a federal employment law case. The case raises questions ultimately asking whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. This is our argument recap. 

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court heard oral argument in Lesko v. United States, an employment law case. Additionally, four new en banc petitions have been filed in patent cases raising questions related to the presumption of validity, eligibility, and claim construction. A new response was filed in a case concerning the appropriate test for design-patent infringement. Finally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two patent cases. Here are the details.

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.