FedCircuitBlog

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.

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 Justice Department scrambled on Thursday to defend the legality of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, just one day before he is set to expand his highly contested global trade war with new duties on America’s closest trading partners”;
• a post highlighting how “Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart dismissed most of the 50 petitions for inter partes review addressed in her latest decisions over discretionary denials”;
• a piece describing how the “full Federal Circuit on Friday rejected by an 8-2 vote Groupon Inc.’s request to reconsider its February decision reviving a patent monetization firm’s Delaware infringement suit against the e-commerce site”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit decision “represents the first significant application of the court’s recent en banc EcoFactor decision to patent damages expert testimony.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals in patent cases. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions. One comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Additionally, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order denying en banc review in a patent case. Notably, Chief Judge Moore and Judge Stoll concurred and Judges Dyk and Hughes dissented from the decision to deny en banc review. Finally, the court issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case and two nonprecedential orders, one denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in a patent case and one dismissing a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the en banc court issued an order granting an immediate administrative stay of judgments and permanent injunctions. As for the two pending en banc cases, the court will hear oral argument next week in one, a government contract case, and the court received an amicus brief in the other, which raises questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, since our last update the court received five new petitions, three in patent cases, one in a case raising questions related to statutory interpretation, and one in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition in a patent case raising a question related to collateral estoppel. The court also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court issued an en banc opinion in a patent case. Additionally, two new en banc petitions were filed. The first raises claim construction questions and the second was filed pro se. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to collateral estoppel, and a new response was filed in opposition to an en banc brief. One amicus brief was also filed with the Federal Circuit. Lastly, the court recently denied five petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed, and two previously filed petitions have been denied. The first new petition raises a question related to Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the patent has already expired; the second raises a question regarding whether a court can rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of a patent after ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing; and the third raises a question concerning collateral estoppel related to a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two denied petitions came in a pro se case and in an appeal related to obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive, but it also has unwittingly complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals”;
• a blog post suggesting that, in a recent decision related to agency deference, the Federal Circuit’s “approach to the analysis [was] wrong”;
• a piece reporting how “Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has decided to end all current appointments to both the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effective immediately”; and
• an article suggesting a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing products into the U.S.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing “the interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”;
• a report covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case; and
• a piece reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.”

Late Friday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released an errata. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and four Rule 36 summary affirmances. Of the two precedential opinions, one comes in Tucker Act case and the other comes in a patent case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a takings case, one in a veterans case, and the other is on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and errata.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion concerning a petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board, a nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, and a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.