FedCircuitBlog

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.

On July 31, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, an en banc case involving challenges to the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. We have been monitoring this case both because it is being considered en banc and because it attracted numerous amicus briefs. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases and one comes in a case dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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 Justice Department scrambled on Thursday to defend the legality of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, just one day before he is set to expand his highly contested global trade war with new duties on America’s closest trading partners”;
• a post highlighting how “Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart dismissed most of the 50 petitions for inter partes review addressed in her latest decisions over discretionary denials”;
• a piece describing how the “full Federal Circuit on Friday rejected by an 8-2 vote Groupon Inc.’s request to reconsider its February decision reviving a patent monetization firm’s Delaware infringement suit against the e-commerce site”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit decision “represents the first significant application of the court’s recent en banc EcoFactor decision to patent damages expert testimony.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Court of International Trade. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene five panels to consider 29 cases. Of the 29 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 19 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. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals in patent cases. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions. One comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Additionally, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying en banc review in a patent case. Notably, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll concurred and Judges Dyk and Hughes dissented from the decision to deny en banc review. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case and one dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article noting how the Federal Circuit “said on Monday that it would extend its suspension of 98-year-old judge Pauline Newman for another year”;
• a piece discussing how “[t]he Trump administration’s trade policy faces a critical test” this week as the Federal Circuit was “scheduled to hear oral arguments . . . in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump” yesterday;
• a report detailing how “[t]he Trump administration is considering a plan to raise tens of billions of dollars with a new fee that would transform the patent system”;
• an article describing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “on Tuesday ordered administrative patent judges to address all grounds raised in America Invents Act petitions when issuing their final decisions”; and
• a blog post discussing how “18 Republican Senators asked the Trump Administration . . . to fill the vacant position of Chief Innovation and Intellectual Property Negotiator.”

There is one case being argued in August at the Federal Circuit that attracted an amicus brief. The case, Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, relates to the apportionment of federal employee retirement annuity supplements pursuant to court orders, for example as a result of divorce decrees. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management asks the court to review whether the Merit Systems Protection Board “misinterpreted 5 U.S.C. § 8421(c) by concluding that OPM cannot divide the annuity supplement at all, unless the division of the annuity supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and two nonprecedential orders in patent cases appealed from the Western District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders.