FedCircuitBlog

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.

The Federal Circuit released its opinion earlier this month in In re United States, a companion case to another case also styled In re United States, decided the same day in a separate opinion. This trade case attracted four amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit considered the International Trade Commission’s appeal from a denial by the Court of International Trade of a motion. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the panel dismissed the case as moot. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found claims not unpatentable. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented. One of the orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider a petition for inter partes review without relying on consideration of “settled expectations.” The other order is a dismissal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and the order denying the petition along with a link to the dismissal.

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.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in In re United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a petition by the International Trade Commission for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of International Trade to retain the confidentiality of questionnaire responses and to permit the Commission to continue its practice of automatically designating questionnaire responses as confidential. In an opinion authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit affirmed the order of the CIT. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case on appeal from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case addressing eligibility on appeal from a district court. Of the denials of petitions, three relate to petitions seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate non-institution decisions on petitions for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders denying petitions, along with 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 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 Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two errata. The opinion comes in an appeal of judgment of patent invalidity and a dismissal of breach-of-contract claims. It discusses when a claim’s preamble should be construed as limiting and addresses indefiniteness regarding spatial terms. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the errata.

This evening the Federal Circuit announced the court will open two hours late tomorrow, February 23. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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.