FedCircuitBlog

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.” Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . denied Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revive her constitutional challenge to the judicial misconduct law under which her colleagues suspended her and are continuing to probe her fitness to serve”;
• a blog post indicating a recent petition at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit “presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation”; and
• a commentary addressing a new policy adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that “limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).”

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

• an article describing how “Samsung Electronics Co. and Google LLC lodged an appellate protest of Trump administration changes that have sunk more than 200 patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a piece considering implications of the PTAB’s announcement that “all PTAB hearings will be held in person at the USPTO’s offices, absent a showing of good cause”;
• a blog post analyzing how “[a]bout half of the patents adjudicated in district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are found invalid”; and
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury’s role in fact finding.”

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

• an article highlighting how “[t]he Trump administration’s top lawyers urged a federal court . . . to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk ‘financial ruin’”;
• another piece discussing how the Trump Administration “sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern”;
• a post describing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has introduced DesignVision, a new artificial intelligence-powered image search tool now available to design patent examiners”; and
• an article covering how the USPTO “plans to require foreign patent applicants and owners to use agency-sanctioned representatives, according to the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda update released Friday.”

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

• an article discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has “formally ended fast-tracking examination of design patents applications, citing efforts to reduce pendency and combat fraud”;
• a blog post describing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick “sent a letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber informing him that the U.S. government is planning to ‘march in’ on its patents” under the Bayh-Dole Act; and
• a piece indicating “[i]nvestigators have uncovered evidence that Russia is at least partly responsible for a recent hack of the computer system that manages federal court documents.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. The panel, consisting of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes, affirmed the jury’s verdict as to one of the patents, reversed the districts court’s JMOL that two of the asserted patents were not invalid, vacated the damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on the validity of two of the asserted patents and damages for all three patents. This is our opinion summary.

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.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dinh v. United States, a case we have been monitoring because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. The Court of Federal Claims held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. The Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas), affirmed. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article discussing how “President Trump on Friday said a potential U.S. court ruling denying his authority to impose a wide range of global tariffs could have devastating impacts on the US economy”;
• a post on highlighting how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has thrown out tens of thousands of applications and registrations for trademarks prepared by a Chinese company that allegedly forged signatures and doled out legal advice despite not having the training to do so”;
• a piece describing how a “memo last week to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board specif[ied] that petitioners for inter partes review must link all limitations to prior art, without relying on expert testimony or ‘general knowledge’”;
• an article covering how “[t]he electronic case filing system used by the federal judiciary has been breached in a sweeping cyber intrusion that is believed to have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states”; and
• an article examining how “[t]he Trump administration on Friday ordered a comprehensive review of Harvard University’s federally funded research programs, and threatened to take title to or grant licenses from the school’s lucrative portfolio of patents.”