Remedial Restraint and the Rule of Law: When Courts Find Violations But Limit Relief

By Dennis Crouch

I was thinking more about the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, No. 2024-1363 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025).  The case is striking what might be seen as “remedial restraint.”  The court found legal violations by the Federal Government in setting Tariffs, but limited any practical relief – at least for the time being.  The 7-4 Federal Circuit majority held that much of the President’s sweeping tariff program is unconstitutional, but also vacated the CIT’s injunction against the tariffs.  On remand, the CIT is charged with applying and considering the Supreme Court’s new remedial framework from Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 1847 (2025).

This two-step dance – merits victory, remedial defeat – is something familiar to patent practitioners who have watched the Federal Circuit navigate similar tensions between legal rights and practical relief.  Even after proving infringement and defending against validity challenges, the eBay framework substantially limits patentee access to injunctive relief to stop ongoing infringement, and the rising tide against testimony for proving money damages.