Latest news with #FederalCircuit
The Hill
15 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme Court won't decide whether to take up Trump's tariffs before summer recess
The Supreme Court on Friday refused two small businesses' request to announce before the court's upcoming summer recess if it will take up their challenge to President Trump's emergency tariffs. Stressing the tariffs' sweeping impacts on the economy, the businesses are asking the justices to take up their challenge now rather than let it proceed through the lower courts in normal course. The justices have yet to decide whether they will do so. But in a brief order Friday, they refused the businesses' additional ask to expedite consideration so an announcement can be made before the summer recess, now just days away. That demand for speed was aimed at having the Supreme Court hear oral arguments as soon as September in the case, which concerns whether Trump can invoke an emergency law to justify his reciprocal 'Liberation Day' tariffs and others imposed on China, Canada and Mexico. By denying the request to expedite, the justices sided with the Trump administration in the procedural fight. The administration had told the court expediting 'makes little sense' and signaled it should wait for another case challenging Trump's tariffs, which is working its way through a separate appeals court. 'Once that Federal Circuit issues its decision, this Court would likely have an opportunity to determine whether to grant certiorari — and, if so, to hear the case during the October 2025 Term. That case would be a better vehicle than this one for resolving the question presented,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings. The non-expedited schedule provides Sauer until mid-July to file the government's court papers formally asking the justices to turn away the current case. The businesses, Learning Resources and hand2mind, and their attorneys at law firm Akin will then have up to two weeks to file a reply brief. However, the justices generally hold petitions that become fully briefed over the summer until the start of the Supreme Court's next annual term in October. The government in its opposition reminded the justices they 'could release an order granting certiorari during the summer.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Appeals court ruling gives Trump a win on tariffs
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump can collect tariffs while states and small businesses continue to fight to overturn the taxes on worldwide imports, under a federal appeals court decision. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled May 28 that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing the tariffs to combat what he cited as 'unusual and extraordinary threats' during national emergencies. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 10 put that decision on hold while the case is litigated. The court's 11 judges will hear full arguments because of the case's "exceptional importance." The judges asked both sides to develop an expedited schedule to complete the case. 'A great and important win for the U.S.,' Trump said on social media. Trump has imposed tariffs on the country's largest trading partners – Mexico, Canada and China – and a slew of other countries. He aimed to reduce trade deficits and said the proceeds from tariffs would reduce the federal deficit while manufacturers would bring jobs back to the U.S. The appeals ruling came in a pair of lawsuits. One was filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties. The other was by 12 states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under the 1977 emergency law that previously was used to impose sanctions or freeze assets of U.S. enemies. But Trump said February tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China were to fight fentanyl trafficking. He imposed sweeping tariffs on other trading partners April 2 to combat the U.S. trade deficit in which the United States buys more from other countries than it sells them. He announced on May 30 he would double the tariff on steel to 50%. The tariffs prompted countries to negotiate individual trade deals with the U.S. The United Kingdom reached an agreement and China continues to negotiate. Administration officials say dozens more potential deals are in the works. But retailers have complained the tariffs are driving up prices and forcing them to cut jobs. At least five other court cases have challenged Trump's justification for tariffs under the emergency economic powers act. A federal district court also blocked the tariffs May 29 for an Illinois toy importer but that case involved only that business. The Trump administration has appealed the decision. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Court ruling gives Trump a win on tariffs while appeal plays out
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Apple wins appeal to overturn $300 mln US patent verdict
June 17 (Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab has convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a $300 million verdict by a jury that found it infringed wireless standard-essential patents owned by IP management company Optis Wireless Technology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday sent Optis' case back, opens new tab to Texas for a new trial after determining that the jury instructions in the previous trial were flawed. The decision marks the second time that a nine-figure U.S. patent verdict for Optis has been overturned in the case. Attorneys and spokespeople for Optis and Apple did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment on the Federal Circuit ruling. Plano, Texas-based Optis and its affiliates sued Apple in 2019 in Marshall, Texas federal court, arguing that the tech giant's iPhones and other products violated their patent rights in technology related to the LTE wireless standard. A jury found in 2020 that Apple owed $506 million for infringing Optis' patents. U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new trial on damages in 2021 after finding the award may not have been in line with Optis' responsibility to license the standard-essential patents on fair and reasonable terms. A new jury awarded Optis $300 million in damages after the retrial later that year. The Federal Circuit on Monday overturned the award and remanded the case for a new trial on both infringement and damages. A three-judge panel said Gilstrap improperly worded the jury verdict form by combining all of the patents at issue into a single infringement question. "The problem with the district court's single infringement question is that it deprived Apple of its right to a unanimous verdict on each legal claim against it," the appeals court said. A UK court separately ruled last month that Apple owes Optis $502 million for infringing Optis' UK wireless patents. Apple has said that it plans to appeal the ruling. The case is Optis Cellular Technology LLC v. Apple Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 22-1925. For Optis: Willy Jay of Goodwin Procter For Apple: Mark Fleming of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Read more: Apple socked with $506 million patent verdict in East Texas Apple wins new damages trial in $506 million patent loss Apple hit with $300 million patent verdict after new Optis trial
Sydney Morning Herald
13-06-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Who gets the pet – and other big changes for divorcing couples
Separating couples fighting in court over the family pet and the division of assets face a new legal landscape following landmark changes that elevate the status of companion animals and recognise the financial consequences of family violence. The changes to the Family Law Act, which started on Tuesday, apply to all former couples about to commence or at the start of proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, unless the final hearing is under way. Companion animals Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the law was now 'a lot clearer' about how the court would approach a dispute over the ownership of a pet in the context of a wider property fight between a former couple. The court must consider a range of factors before making orders about pets, including who had looked after the animal, bonds of attachment – including between the pet and the parties' children – and demonstrated ability to provide care. Crucially, family violence must also be considered, including 'any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal'. Melbourne-based family law expert Jodylee Bartal, a partner at Schetzer Papaleo Family Lawyers, said the changes 'elevate the treatment of animals to reflect the important role that they play in some families'. The laws applied to family pets rather than other animals such as working dogs. Bartal said the court could only grant ownership of the pet to one party, order that it be sold, or order that its ownership be transferred to a third party if that person consented. It could not make an order for shared custody of pets, but the parties could agree to this.
The Age
13-06-2025
- Business
- The Age
Who gets the pet – and other big changes for divorcing couples
Separating couples fighting in court over the family pet and the division of assets face a new legal landscape following landmark changes that elevate the status of companion animals and recognise the financial consequences of family violence. The changes to the Family Law Act, which started on Tuesday, apply to all former couples about to commence or at the start of proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, unless the final hearing is under way. Companion animals Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the law was now 'a lot clearer' about how the court would approach a dispute over the ownership of a pet in the context of a wider property fight between a former couple. The court must consider a range of factors before making orders about pets, including who had looked after the animal, bonds of attachment – including between the pet and the parties' children – and demonstrated ability to provide care. Crucially, family violence must also be considered, including 'any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal'. Melbourne-based family law expert Jodylee Bartal, a partner at Schetzer Papaleo Family Lawyers, said the changes 'elevate the treatment of animals to reflect the important role that they play in some families'. The laws applied to family pets rather than other animals such as working dogs. Bartal said the court could only grant ownership of the pet to one party, order that it be sold, or order that its ownership be transferred to a third party if that person consented. It could not make an order for shared custody of pets, but the parties could agree to this.
