Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases, including a note regarding the extent of the court’s review of executive authority over international affairs, a discussion of a “disturbing trend” at the court in patent cases, and a comment on a recent amicus brief arguing the court’s precedent in the area of patent damages raises “serious policy concerns.”

The Cato Institute’s William Yeatman wrote that after the Cato Institute filed its amicus brief last month in support of the appellants in American Institute for International Steel v. United States, the Justice Department recently filed its own brief, and “[i]n response to arguments that the Constitution empowers Congress—not the president—to regulate foreign commerce, the government stresses the president’s executive authority over foreign affairs.” (We previously reported on the Cato Institute’s amicus brief.)

Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog discussed the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., noting that “the arguments raised by Capital One against Intellectual Ventures are part of a disturbing trend” in which “[u]nwilling licensees who engage in a scheme of efficient infringement to avoid paying for patent licenses are increasingly looking to creative antitrust theories to escape liability for their actions.”

At Law 360, Britain Eakin highlighted Intel’s recent amicus brief filed in support of Time Warner Cable’s petition for certiorari in Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., commenting that the brief states “[a] retreat by the Federal Circuit from the long-standing U.S. Supreme Court requirement that damages should be awarded only for the portions of accused products that infringe patents raises ‘serious policy concerns.’”