FedCircuitBlog

This week, and as it turns out, next Monday, is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 70 cases. Of the 70 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuits YouTube channel. This month, four cases schedules for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Early this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Arltons appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Central District of California, which held that AeroVironment could not be held liable for infringement. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

As we have previously reported, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case. In it, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case. In it, Titanium appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, two petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed with the Federal Circuit in patent cases, raising questions related to judicial estoppel, appellate procedure, and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition for en banc rehearing 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 reporting how the “Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s tariff decision undercuts President Trump’s “signature economic policy” and delivers Trump’s “biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court “ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats”; and
• an article identifying “six takeaways from the decision” by the Supreme Court.

This morning the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize tariffs imposed by President Trump early in his administration. The Court decided the case by a vote of six to three, but it issued splintering opinions totaling 170 pages explaining various approaches to deciding the case. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. In it, Chief Justice Roberts explains why the Court concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Other parts of the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts invoke the major questions doctrine as another basis to affirm the Federal Circuit, but those parts were joined only by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. Beyond the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, every other Justice except for Justices Sotomayor and Alito issued their own opinions:

• Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion explaining why he joined in full the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, paying particular attention to the major questions doctrine.
• Justice Barrett filed an opinion responding to criticism from Justice Gorsuch about her view of the major questions doctrine.
• Justice Kagan filed an opinion joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concluding that the Court need not address the major questions doctrine given the Court’s statutory interpretation.
• Justice Jackson filed an opinion invoking legislative history as another basis to support the Court’s statutory interpretation.
• Justice Thomas filed an opinion discussing his view that IEEPA is consistent with separation of powers.
• Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting from the holding of the Court. This was the primary dissent.

Here are introductions and relevant excerpts of the various opinions.

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

• a piece indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25”;
• an article suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue”;
• an article identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape”; and
• a blog post discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”