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 “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative”;
• an article detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims”; and
• an article reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. With respect to pending petitions, since our last update new petitions were filed in a takings case and in two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and three pro se cases; and an amicus brief was filed 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 discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber”;
• an article noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal”;
• an article reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing”; and
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.”

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

• an article indicating President Trump will ask the Supreme Court on an “expedited timeline” to overrule the Federal Circuit’s “ruling that found many of his punishing tariffs to be illegal”; and
• an article addressing how “[l]abor unions representing certain U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Weather Service employees filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order nullifying their labor protections.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued two en banc opinions, one in a trade case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, and another in a government contract case, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States. Additionally, two petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases. One raises questions related to identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings. The other raises questions related to claim construction. Finally, a response was filed in opposition to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to estoppel and inter partes review. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released an errata related to its recent en banc decision affirming the Court of International Trade’s invalidation of President Trump’s tariffs. Here is the link to the errata.

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 today, by a vote of 7-4, the Federal Circuit decided V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the en banc case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the holding of the Court of International Trade that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders.” The Federal Circuit, however, also vacated the lower court’s permanent universal injunction and remanded the case for the lower court “to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief.” The Federal Circuit explained its decision in a forty-five page per curiam opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark. Judge Cunningham filed a separate opinion joined by Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stark expressing additional views. Judge Taranto authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Chen. They “disagree[d] with the majority’s conclusion on the issue of the tariffs’ legality.” Notably, the court also released an en banc nonprecedential order withholding issuance of the mandate through October 14 to allow the government time to petition the Supreme Court. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit received two letters in the court’s pending en banc case involving President Trump. In addition, two petitions for en banc review were filed in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 52 evidentiary trials and patent eligibility, and the court denied a petition in another patent case raising questions related to invalidity. 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 “[t]he Trump administration’s top lawyers urged a federal court . . . to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk ‘financial ruin’”;
• another piece discussing how the Trump Administration “sees complete disaster for the U.S. economy if its reciprocal tariffs are struck down, revealing its level of concern”;
• a post describing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has introduced DesignVision, a new artificial intelligence-powered image search tool now available to design patent examiners”; and
• an article covering how the USPTO “plans to require foreign patent applicants and owners to use agency-sanctioned representatives, according to the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda update released Friday.”