FedCircuitBlog

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case. The Federal Circuit had concluded that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Here is the introduction and conclusion of majority opinion. Next week we plan to post a full opinion summary.

As we previously reported, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed a judgment of the Federal Circuit in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit had held that the 60-day statutory deadline for Harrow to file his petition for review in the Federal Circuit is a “jurisdictional requirement” and therefore “precludes equitable exceptions.” The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kagan, vacated and remanded the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that the 60-day deadline is not a jurisdictional requirement and therefore does not preclude equitable exceptions. This is our opinion summary.

Today the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case. In the opinion, the en banc court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test used to assess the nonobviousness of design patents. The court decided to apply “the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents.” Notably, Judge Lourie concurred in the judgment, suggesting it was unnecessary to overrule Rosen and Durling. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion. We will post an opinion summary later this week.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that Judge Richard Linn received the American Inns of Court Professionalism Award. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court is reviewing during its current term. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the deadline for a federal employee to appeal an adverse judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court today held that the deadline is not jurisdictional. The Court, however, did not reach the question of whether, as a result, equitable tolling is available, instead remanding the case for the Federal Circuit to rule on that issue. Here is the introduction to the Court’s opinion. We will provide an opinion summary next week.

Today, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion and order in Judge Newman’s lawsuit, which asserts facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the statutory provision creating circuit judicial councils. The opinion and order denies Judge Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have “prohibit[ed] Defendants from continuing her suspension from new case assignments and from proceeding with any further disciplinary proceedings until the matter is transferred to the judicial council of another circuit.” The opinion and order also grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but three of Judge Newman’s claims based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Here is the introduction to the opinion and order.

This morning the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States released a memorandum of decision unanimously denying a petition filed by Judge Newman. That petition asked the Committee to review the order of the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council that suspended Judge Newman for the period of at least one year. Today’s memorandum includes the following findings:

• “We find that the Chief Circuit Judge and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council did not abuse their discretion by declining to request a transfer”;
• “we find no error in the Judicial Council’s conclusion that, based on the evidence gathered by the Special Committee, there was a reasonable basis for requesting that Judge Newman undergo a medical evaluation;” and
• “[w]e find that the sanction is consistent with sanctions imposed in a variety of contexts under the Act, and a one-year suspension of cases is not grossly in excess of other suspensions imposed under the [Judicial Conduct and Disability] Act.”

Here is the introduction and a link to the memorandum.

Last week, the Supreme Court granted petition for certiorari in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the petitioner asked the Court to consider whether the deadline to file a petition for the Federal Circuit to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. This matters because, as it stands, the Federal Circuit has concluded that the deadline is jurisdictional and, as a result, not subject to equitable tolling. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules go into effect today. As part of implementing various changes, the court updated its rules, forms, guides, and fee schedule. Here is the text of today’s announcement and links to various related documents.

This morning the Federal Circuit released additional materials pertaining to the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit. These materials include a redacted audio recording and various letters and orders, including a 375-page document containing a 73-page unanimous per curiam order of the court’s Judicial Council dated today along with numerous redacted supporting attachments. Most significantly, today’s order suspends Judge Newman for the period of at least one year. The order states:

1. “Judge Newman shall not be permitted to hear any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year beginning with the issuance of this Order, subject to consideration of renewal if Judge Newman’s refusal to cooperate continues after that time and to consideration of  modification or rescission if justified by an end of the refusal to cooperate.”
2. “The Committee shall maintain jurisdiction over this matter.”

Here is the full text of this morning’s announcement, with links to the released materials, including today’s order and attachments along with prior letters and orders and a redacted audio recording.