FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reporting on V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and how “[t]he Trump administration . . . urged the Supreme Court to uphold President Donald Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs”;
• a commentary discussing how “President Donald Trump’s global tariffs and his bid to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook . . . are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide how far he can go to reshape and control the levers of the economy”;
• a blog post explaining how “[r]ecent cases involving design patents on appeal to . . . the Federal Circuit highlight significant developments and issues”; and
• an article addressing how “the U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires to serve as director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted five amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Northern District of California holding several patent claims invalid and two patents unenforceable based on prosecution laches. The panel, consisting of Federal Circuit Judges Lourie and Prost and District of New Jersey Chief Judge Renée Bumb, reversed in part and affirmed in part. 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 suggesting President Trump’s tariffs case “will shape US economic policy for years to come—and its effects will reach far beyond tariffs”;
• an article discussing the “legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act”;
• an article indicating the Federal Circuit “clarified several important principles governing patent claim construction” in a series of decisions issued between March and August; and
• an article arguing “[t]he Commerce Department is mulling a change to the 235-year-old patent system that would impair American start-ups.”

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit announced that next month it will be relocating the court’s drop box and changing the times when it will be available. Here is the text of the announcement.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced proposed amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. Among other things, the amendments would add a new section permitting an eligible law student to enter an appearance on behalf of a party with the consent of the party and a supervising attorney, as well as appear on briefs and participate in oral arguments in appropriate circumstances. The amendments would also prohibit former court employees from disclosing to new employers or potential employers the list they receive of pending cases that they may not participate in or assist with after employment at the court. The announcement includes links to the proposed amendments and an email address to submit public comments. Here is a full text to the announcement along with links to the materials.

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.