FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments.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.

Only one case scheduled for oral argument in September attracted an amicus brief. That case is an employment law case, Lesko v United States. It raises questions concerning how “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) should be interpreted after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and ultimately whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. After a panel of the court heard oral argument, the court voted sua sponte for en banc consideration. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses prosecution laches and Article III jurisdiction. This is the court’s second time hearing the case, following an earlier decision in 2021. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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).”