FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article addressing how a “U.S. judge dismissed the state of California’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, allowing the state to file an appeal over the court’s ruling that the dispute should have been filed in a specialized U.S. trade court in New York”;
• another report covering how a “federal judge in Washington, D.C., extended a pause on his order invalidating the bulk of President Trump’s tariffs” until the Federal Circuit can “resolve the case”; and
• a piece examining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a ‘USPTO Hour’ Wednesday in which it announced the results of a study it apparently conducted over the last five years.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, there has been no new activity since our last post. With respect to pending petitions, there were three waivers of right to respond to petitions, one in a pro se case, one in a patent case, and another in a government contracts case. There were also two new replies filed in support of petitions in patent cases. Finally, there were two denials of petitions filed in 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 describing how the Federal Circuit “temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Thursday, a day after a U.S. trade court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them;”
• another article similarly addressing how the Federal Circuit “temporarily agreed to preserve many of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners”;
• a report outlining how “[t]hree appeals in federal patent-infringement lawsuits center on the legality of an East Texas judge’s unconventional choice to have juries answer a single yes-or-no question on whether defendants copied multiple patents rather than deciding separately whether each individual patent was infringed”; and
• a piece examining the “intellectual property-related provisions” in “the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act,’” which passed the House of Representatives on May 22.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the en banc court issued an order granting an immediate administrative stay of judgments and permanent injunctions. As for the two pending en banc cases, the court will hear oral argument next week in one, a government contract case, and the court received an amicus brief in the other, which raises questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, since our last update the court received five new petitions, three in patent cases, one in a case raising questions related to statutory interpretation, and one in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition in a patent case raising a question related to collateral estoppel. The court also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, Google appealed a judgment decided of the Western District of Texas, which denied its motion for a new trial on damages. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. The Federal Circuit additionally reinstated the panel opinion as to issues other than damages. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of these 62 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 39 cases. As always, the Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s Youtube channel. This month, only one case scheduled for oral arguments attracted an amicus brief. That case is an en banc government contract case. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

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

• an article in response to “the confirmation hearing last week for John Squires” that discussed “the complex intersection between patent quality, patent examination and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”;
• a blog post indicating that, “[i]n a number of recent opinions, the Federal Circuit decided the case on grounds that were not raised on appeal by either party”;
• a piece detailing how “Amgen Inc’s ongoing challenge to a Colorado Law regulating retail drug prices could serve as a litmus test for widespread state government efforts to keep medication costs low;” and
• a report covering how VLSI Technology LLC’s connection to Fortress Investment Group “will be at the heart of a three-day trial” next week that “could upend infringement verdicts against Intel Corp. totaling more than $3 billion.”

Late today the Federal Circuit issued an order granting an immediate administrative stay of the judgments and permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade against President Trump’s Executive orders imposing various tariffs. The order indicates the stay will remain in force until the Court of International Trade itself stays the injunctions or the Federal Circuit rules on the government’s motions to stay. Notably, the order, while issued per curiam, indicates all eleven of the court’s active judges (other than Judge Newman) agreed to grant the administrative stay. Here is the full text of the order.

On May 5, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case originally decided by the Court of Federal Claims. In this takings case, the Federal Circuit reviewed questions related to rails-to-trails conversion, whether the lower court erred when it refused to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court and when it held that right-of-way and damage-release forms landowners signed in the 1840s and 1850s granted a railroad title to fee simple estates in a strip of land used for a railway line. Judge Cunningham authored the the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which described why the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Judges Stoll and Lourie joined Judge Cunningham’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.  

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in United Water Conservation District v. United States, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal of a takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. That court held that a restriction of water rights did not constitute a physical taking but rather a regulatory taking, which presented an unripe controversy. Judge Lourie, Judge Hughes, and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas) heard the oral argument. Judge Lourie authored a unanimous opinion for the panel affirming the judgment. This is our opinion summary.