FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new en banc petition has been filed, raising a question regarding the appropriateness of Rule 36 summary affirmances; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness-type double patenting; and the court denied a petition 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 indicating President Trump will ask the Supreme Court on an “expedited timeline” to overrule the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that found many of his punishing tariffs to be illegal”; and
• an article addressing how “[l]abor unions representing certain U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Weather Service employees filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order nullifying their labor protections.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued two en banc opinions, one in a trade case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, and another in a government contract case, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States. Additionally, two petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases. One raises questions related to identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings. The other raises questions related to claim construction. Finally, a response was filed in opposition to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to estoppel and inter partes review. Here are the details.

On Friday, the Federal Circuit announced the release of additional materials in the ongoing investigation of Judge Newman’s fitness to serve on the court. Notably, the materials include a unanimous order of the Judicial Court indicating that Judge Newman “shall not be permitted to hear or participate in any cases, at the panel or en banc level, for a period of one year beginning with the issuance of this Order.” Here is the full text of the announcement with links to the materials.

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling that President “Trump does not have the authority to use emergency economic powers to impose taxes on imports”;
• an article reporting how Judge “Newman’s fellow active judges who make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council voted unanimously to keep her from hearing new cases”;
• a blog post commenting on a recent Federal Circuit decision reversing a district court’s finding with respect to unenforceability due to prosecution laches; and
• an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit opinion that vacated a refusal to register the f-word as a trademark.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. This week (and next, as it turns out), court will convene 9 panels to consider 49 cases. Of the 49 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 33 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. That case is an en banc employment law case. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

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.” Notably, the court also released an en banc nonprecedential order withholding issuance of the mandate through October 14 to allow the government time to petition the Supreme Court. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

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.