FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court both abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony and erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Judge Prost filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The first precedential opinion reverses and remands a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while the other precedential opinion affirms the Western District of Texas’s dismissal of a case for failure to state a claim. The first nonprecedential opinion affirms the dismissal of a petition for review by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second nonprecedential opinion affirms two final decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a whistleblower case. The first nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal, while the other two nonprecedential orders grant summary affirmances under Rule 36. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for merits cases, highlights include an oral argument and a slew of amicus briefs, respectively, in two cases. As for petitions, only one new petition was filed, and just a handful of response and reply briefs were filed. The Supreme Court, however, denied petitions in a large number of cases, including most notably in Athena, Hikma, and HP, as we previously discussed. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. It was an exceptionally busy week. In granted cases, the Supreme Court decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. and heard oral arguments in four of its other cases. As for petitions cases, two petitions were denied and four new responses, two new replies, and three new amicus briefs were filed. Here are the details.

Happy Thanksgiving! Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, the only case with any activity was Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, in which the petitioner filed its reply brief. As for petitions, the Court denied review in three cases, parties filed three responses in opposition and one reply, and a third party filed an amicus brief in one case. We have the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Of the six pending merits cases, there was no new activity. Three new petitions, however, were filed, along with a supplemental brief, two response briefs, and an amicus brief.