FedCircuitBlog

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.”

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.

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 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 week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

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

• an article arguing “the legal case against the Trump tariffs is strong”;
• a blog post indicating there has been a trend of “increased willingness of the Federal Circuit to reject jury verdicts, especially in situations involving potentially inadequate expert testimony”;
• an article reporting how, “[o]n the same day the federal government shut down, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would permanently close its Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office in Denver”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office laid off some employees . . . affecting around 1% of the agency’s workforce.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. With respect to petitions, four new petitions have been filed. Two petitions present questions related to Federal Circuit Rule 36, while two were filed in pro se cases. In addition, three new briefs in opposition and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced it will remain open for business during the lapse in federal appropriations, all scheduled arguments will proceed as scheduled, and all deadlines remain in place. Here is the full text of the announcement along with a link to the court’s related order.

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.