Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article addressing how a “U.S. judge dismissed the state of California’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, allowing the state to file an appeal over the court’s ruling that the dispute should have been filed in a specialized U.S. trade court in New York”;
- another report covering how a “federal judge in Washington, D.C., extended a pause on his order invalidating the bulk of President Trump’s tariffs” until the Federal Circuit can “resolve the case”; and
- a piece examining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a ‘USPTO Hour’ Wednesday in which it announced the results of a study it apparently conducted over the last five years.”
Dietrich Knauth published an article with Reuters addressing how a “U.S. judge dismissed the state of California’s challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, allowing the state to file an appeal over the court’s ruling that the dispute should have been filed in a specialized U.S. trade court in New York.” Knauth explained how the ruling “did not delve into the merits of California’s lawsuit,” and that, “[n]ow, three separate U.S. appeals courts may simultaneously consider the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.” Knauth further highlighted how California “had asked the judge to dismiss its case rather than transfer it,” arguing that “any federal court can hear the case because it raises a constitutional objection to Trump’s use of tariff powers that are reserved for Congress unless delegated to a president.”
Zach Schonfeld published a report with The Hill covering how a “federal judge in Washington, D.C., extended a pause on his order invalidating the bulk of President Trump’s tariffs” until the Federal Circuit can “resolve the case.” Schonfeld explained how “U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras had already agreed to put his ruling on hold for two weeks when he issued it,” but upon “noting the Federal Circuit’s pause, Contreras went ahead and put his decision on hold indefinitely.”
Eileen McDermott and Gene Quinn penned a piece for IP Watchdog examining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a ‘USPTO Hour'” last Wednesday in which it announced the results of a study it apparently conducted over the last five years.” McDermott observed how this study “specifically focused on allowed applications with large patent families,” indicating it “raises questions about whether the USPTO has been secretly engaging in additional examination—and rejection of applications—after the assigned examiner determined claims were allowable.”