FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one petition for rehearing en banc was granted in a case raising a question related to whether veterans’ preference rights are applicable to veterans currently employed by the federal government, and one new amicus brief was filed in a case raising a question related to the President’s Article II removal powers. In addition, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed raising questions related to appellate procedure and means-plus-function treatment. Lastly, three petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to test for design patent infringement, the constitutional right to a jury trial, the Administrative Procedure Act, appellate procedure, and transfer. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases; three waivers of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board and two pro se cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a veterans case; and seven amicus briefs were filed in one patent 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 covering how Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas recently urged Congress to “fix Section 101” before a “tsunami” of artificial intelligence cases raise difficult questions related to patent eligibility;
• an article reporting how “[g]overnment lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court”;
• an article discussing how last week the Federal Circuit “declined to reconsider its test for determining when a design patent is infringed, months after the court’s chief judge harshly criticized the current standard in a case involving body massage tools”; and
• a blog post highlighting how the USPTO “published a Federal Register Notice Tuesday announcing administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin.”

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc rehearing and issued a modified opinion in Brimer v. Department of the Navy. Notably, Part I of the modified opinion is joined by all eleven of the active judges participating in the case. In that part, the court overrules its precedent and holds that a statutory provision granting veterans’ preference rights is applicable to veterans currently employed by the federal government. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another 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 suggesting the Federal Circuit in a recent opinion “explored and clarified” the limits on how a court can correct errors in patents;
• a blog post indicating another recent Federal Circuit decision answers the question of “[w]hat value” a patent has when it “expires before it issues”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s “unanimous decision in Hikma v. Amarin fundamentally altered the legal landscape for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, imposing a stricter standard for what constitutes patent infringement liability and potentially clearing a path for lower-cost alternatives to reach patients sooner”; and
• an article arguing President Trump’s “new Section 301 tariffs . . . run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to ‘speak clearly’ when authorizing the executive to make decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.’”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, fourteen amicus briefs were filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal power. Also, two new response briefs were filed in response to petitions in patent cases raising questions related to damages, the written description requirement, and the enablement requirement. 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 discussing “a recent decision from the . . . Federal Circuit reinforcing the boundaries of patent eligibility as it concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning models”;
• a blog post covering how the “Office of Personnel Management moved Friday to finalize regulations that collectively seize jurisdiction over thousands of employee appeals, as the federal government’s dedicated HR agency moves to centralize power over the federal workforce”; and
• an article highlighting purported experts as saying that, “while Section 301 is the apparent ‘Plan C’ for enacting tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports, the law gives the president a better legal defense for the duties.”

As noted on the court’s website, the Federal Circuit will not hear oral arguments this month. According to an article published by Law 360, a court spokesperson said the National Courts Building “is currently undergoing significant, internal infrastructure upgrades that require portions of the building to be inaccessible for safety reasons.” We will resume Court Week postings with the court’s September session.