FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article highlighting how “[t]he Trump administration’s top lawyers urged a federal court . . . to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk ‘financial ruin’”;
• another piece discussing how the Trump Administration “sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern”;
• a post describing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has introduced DesignVision, a new artificial intelligence-powered image search tool now available to design patent examiners”; and
• an article covering how the USPTO “plans to require foreign patent applicants and owners to use agency-sanctioned representatives, according to the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda update released Friday.”

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

• an article discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has “formally ended fast-tracking examination of design patents applications, citing efforts to reduce pendency and combat fraud”;
• a blog post describing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick “sent a letter to Harvard University President Alan Garber informing him that the U.S. government is planning to ‘march in’ on its patents” under the Bayh-Dole Act; and
• a piece indicating “[i]nvestigators have uncovered evidence that Russia is at least partly responsible for a recent hack of the computer system that manages federal court documents.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. The panel, consisting of Judges Dyk, Chen, and Hughes, affirmed the jury’s verdict as to one of the patents, reversed the districts court’s JMOL that two of the asserted patents were not invalid, vacated the damages award, and remanded the case for a new trial on the validity of two of the asserted patents and damages for all three patents. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a party filed its reply brief in a pending en banc case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition in a design patent case, and the court denied two petitions in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dinh v. United States, a case we have been monitoring because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a takings claim. The Court of Federal Claims held that, because congressional action did not explicitly devalue certain bonds or require transferring funds to repay the bonds to the Puerto Rican government, there was no taking. The Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Gilstrap (sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Texas), affirmed. 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 discussing how “President Trump on Friday said a potential U.S. court ruling denying his authority to impose a wide range of global tariffs could have devastating impacts on the US economy”;
• a post on highlighting how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has thrown out tens of thousands of applications and registrations for trademarks prepared by a Chinese company that allegedly forged signatures and doled out legal advice despite not having the training to do so”;
• a piece describing how a “memo last week to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board specif[ied] that petitioners for inter partes review must link all limitations to prior art, without relying on expert testimony or ‘general knowledge’”;
• an article covering how “[t]he electronic case filing system used by the federal judiciary has been breached in a sweeping cyber intrusion that is believed to have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states”; and
• an article examining how “[t]he Trump administration on Friday ordered a comprehensive review of Harvard University’s federally funded research programs, and threatened to take title to or grant licenses from the school’s lucrative portfolio of patents.”

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two new opinions, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another 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 discussing how the Federal Circuit “appeared skeptical of U.S. President Donald Trump’s argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs”;
• a piece highlighting how Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart “addressed rumors that the Trump administration is considering a new fee on the values of patents”;
• an article describing how Acting Director Stewart said the USPTO would no longer waive a statutory requirement that petitions for inter partes review “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied on”;
• a piece covering how the USPTO “is ramping up its internal generative AI tools and is preparing to roll out an AI training portal ‘very soon’ to help the workforce become more comfortable using GenAI”; and
• a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit “recently expanded its doctrine associated with specification changes in family member patent applications—using minor changes in the specification [to] justify differing claim construction across a patent family.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court heard oral argument in the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs, and the court denied three petitions for en banc review, two in patent cases and one in a takings case. Notably, in the denial in one of the patent cases, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll issued a concurring opinion and Judges Dyk and Hughes issued a dissenting opinion. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new petition was filed in a pro se case involving a former patent examiner. Also, responses were requested in two patent cases both presenting the same question related to the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to conduct administrative adjudications. Here are the details.