Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights the Federal Circuit’s ruling in American Institute for International Steel v. United States upholding the Trump administration’s steel tariffs, an argument made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that Arthrex does not extend to trademark judges, and a ruling by the Federal Circuit denying an injunction against a producer of a bioequivalent multiple sclerosis drug.
Alex Lawson reported for Law360 that in American Institute for International Steel v. United States, “[t]he Federal Circuit denied a steel importer group’s bid to undo the Trump administration’s national security tariffs Friday, finding that the Cold War-era law used to impose the levies did not violate the U.S. Constitution.” According to Lawson, “President Donald Trump imposed a 25% levy after deeming steel imports a national security risk in 2018 using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.” Lawson notes that the Federal Circuit rejected the AIIS’s argument “that Section 232 gave away congressional authority over trade to the president with no limitations.” (We previously posted an argument preview and an argument recap for this case.)
At Bloomberg Law, Ian Lopez highlighted an argument made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “that a recent Federal Circuit ruling on the constitutionality of administrative patent judges doesn’t apply to the agency’s trademark judges.” Lopez notes that in Soler-Somohano v. Coca-Cola Co., the USPTO argued in a Wednesday filing that Arthrex “addressed the constitutional status of patent judges, not trademark judges.”
Sarah Morgan wrote for Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review that in Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, “[t]he US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected Biogen’s bid to block a bioequivalent version of its multiple sclerosis drug, pending an appeal against a lower court’s ruling.” According to Morgan, “the Federal Circuit denied Biogen’s request for an injunction against Banner Life Sciences, finding that Biogen had failed to establish that an injunction pending appeal was warranted.”