FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting “the tariff case the [Supreme Court] justices agreed to hear” will be “more significant” than any other “legal clashes in the next three-plus years of Donald Trump’s term in office”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he Trump administration must cross a minefield without a misstep in order to uphold its tariffs”;
• a blog post detailing how President Trump’s tariff case presents a critical test of presidential power and how “[t]he stakes in the litigation are enormous”; and
• an article discussing how President Trump’s tariff case “is not only the linchpin of the president’s economic agenda but also the trajectory of executive power . . . and now accelerating expansion.”

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

• an article reporting how “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative”;
• an article detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims”; and
• an article reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. With respect to pending petitions, since our last update new petitions were filed in a takings case and in two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and three pro se cases; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize President Trump’s recent tariffs. 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 discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber”;
• an article noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal”;
• an article reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing”; and
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.”

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

• an article indicating President Trump will ask the Supreme Court on an “expedited timeline” to overrule the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that found many of his punishing tariffs to be illegal”; and
• an article addressing how “[l]abor unions representing certain U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Weather Service employees filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order nullifying their labor protections.”

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.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit announced the release of additional materials in the ongoing investigation of Judge Newman’s fitness to serve on the court. Notably, the materials include a unanimous order of the Judicial Court indicating that Judge Newman “shall not be permitted to hear or participate in any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year beginning with the issuance of this Order.” Here is the full text of the announcement with links to the materials.