FedCircuitBlog

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.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. Two of the opinions come in pro se cases, and the other is a revised opinion in a patent case. The original opinion issued in March. The revisions appear to add the identification of a patent claim that the original opinion did not identify. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are not currently any cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case addressing after-arising technology; a waiver of right to respond was filed in the same patent case; and a brief in opposition was filed in another patent case in response to a petition raising a question related to agency adjudication. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. All of the opinions are per curiam and come in pro se cases, two of which are trademark cases. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an errata related to its recent en banc decision affirming the Court of International Trade’s invalidation of President Trump’s tariffs. Here is the link to the errata.

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.