FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new en banc petition has been filed, raising a question regarding the appropriateness of Rule 36 summary affirmances; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness-type double patenting; and the court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

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.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released an en banc precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The en banc opinion addresses the law governing standing to file a bid protest in a government contract dispute. Judge Hughes authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and six other judges. Notably, Judge Hughes authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by three other judges. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight two new opinions, one in a patent infringement case and one in a takings case. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in two patent cases, a new reply brief filed in another patent case, and a new amicus brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court heard oral argument in the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs, and the court denied three petitions for en banc review, two in patent cases and one in a takings case. Notably, in the denial in one of the patent cases, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll issued a concurring opinion and Judges Dyk and Hughes issued a dissenting opinion. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted multiple amicus briefs. The case, Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., raises questions concerning prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the boundaries of judicial discretion at trial. Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions for en banc review filed in patent cases along with two new amicus briefs in a patent case and a takings case. Finally, the court recently denied one petition for en banc review in a patent case. Here are the details.

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

• an article highlighting how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office urged the Federal Circuit on Friday to reject allegations that its handling of policies governing Fintiv-based discretionary denials violates due process”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reversed a $106 million jury verdict” in “a decision that broadens the reach of prosecution history estoppel (and thus limits doctrine of equivalents)”; and
• an article suggesting that the Federal Circuit “took an important initial step toward recalibration” when it “mandated the retrial of a $20 million damages ruling in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC.“

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the parties filed their en banc briefs in a pending case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference in the context of a regulation adopted by the Office of Personnel Management related to overtime pay. Two amicus briefs were also filed in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit invited a response from appellants in two patent cases and denied three petitions. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released five additional nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, two veterans cases, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and one nonprecedential order transferring an appeal. Here are the details.