FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reporting on V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and how “[t]he Trump administration . . . urged the Supreme Court to uphold President Donald Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs”;
• a commentary discussing how “President Donald Trump’s global tariffs and his bid to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook . . . are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide how far he can go to reshape and control the levers of the economy”;
• a blog post explaining how “[r]ecent cases involving design patents on appeal to . . . the Federal Circuit highlight significant developments and issues”; and
• an article addressing how “the U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires to serve as director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Percipient.AI, INC. v. United States. In this case, Percipient.ai appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed its bid protest for lack of standing. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Chen, Cunningham, and Stark, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Notably, Judge Stoll filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Taranto. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Late last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted five amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Northern District of California holding several patent claims invalid and two patents unenforceable based on prosecution laches. The panel, consisting of Federal Circuit Judges Lourie and Prost and District of New Jersey Chief Judge Renée Bumb, reversed in part and affirmed in part. 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 suggesting President Trump’s tariffs case “will shape US economic policy for years to come—and its effects will reach far beyond tariffs”;
• an article discussing the “legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act”;
• an article indicating the Federal Circuit “clarified several important principles governing patent claim construction” in a series of decisions issued between March and August; and
• an article arguing “[t]he Commerce Department is mulling a change to the 235-year-old patent system that would impair American start-ups.”

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit announced that next month it will be relocating the court’s drop box and changing the times when it will be available. Here is the text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Last week the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Lesko v. United States, a federal employment law case. The case raises questions ultimately asking whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. This is our argument recap. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an errata to a precedential opinion. Here is a link to the errata.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. As for pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising a question related to what qualifies as a printed publication. Two new reply briefs were filed, one supporting a petition raising a question related to the Lanham Act and one supporting a petition raising a question related to the activities of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.