FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how “Costco has sued the Trump administration for a refund of the tariffs it has paid on imported goods”;
• an article discussing how “[t]here are a number of alternative statutes that the administration could rely on to issue” tariffs “instead of IEEPA” if President Trump’s tariffs are struck down by the Supreme Court;
• a blog post arguing recent Federal Circuit decisions “establish that the ‘final and nonappealable’ language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of [inter partes review] institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges”; and
• a blog post recounting how the Supreme Court denied certiorari in “a case that asked the Justices to clarify U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent around using ‘after-arising technology’ to hold a patent invalid in the context of patent-infringement suits.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a case addressing jurisdiction, a veterans case, and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in the case addressing jurisdiction; a brief in opposition was filed in a trademark case; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and two amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case. Finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a patent case, one in a trademark case, and on in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a government contract case, and a pro se case; briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and a takings case; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a Rule 36 case and two pro se cases; five amicus briefs were filed in a government contract case; and three petitions were denied, one in a Rule 36 case and two in pro se cases. 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 predicting “[w]hy the Supreme Court may choose to uphold Trump’s tariffs: ‘It would be incredibly disruptive to unscramble those eggs’”;
• an article indicating the “U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear new patent cases for nearly three years has frustrated parties that suffer appellate losses and left the Federal Circuit as the final arbiter over legal disputes that divide the patent bar”;
• a blog post reporting how a “number of amici weighed in . . .  to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether, “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act”; and
• an article discussing how a “recent U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling — now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — threatens to impose retroactive duties on importers of solar cells and modules.”

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

• an article indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%”;
• an article discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it;
• a blog post arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112”; and
• an article suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the en banc court heard oral argument in Lesko v. United States, an employment law case. Additionally, four new en banc petitions have been filed in patent cases raising questions related to the presumption of validity, eligibility, and claim construction. A new response was filed in a case concerning the appropriate test for design-patent infringement. Finally, the court denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are not currently any cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case addressing after-arising technology; a waiver of right to respond was filed in the same patent case; and a brief in opposition was filed in another patent case in response to a petition raising a question related to agency adjudication. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a party filed its reply brief in a pending en banc case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference. As for pending petitions, the Federal Circuit received two new responses to petitions in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition in a design patent case, and the court denied two petitions in two other patent cases. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two arose from appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments and two more dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.