Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber”;
- an article noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal”;
- an article reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing”; and
- a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.”
Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber.” According to Kass, the Patent Public Advisory Committee and Trademark Public Advisory Committee members “can be removed by the administration without cause, but the law requires them to be replaced within 90 days.” Kass notes how “Lutnick cleared out both committees on March 18, meaning replacements should have been named by June 16.”
Ari Hawkins authored an article for Politico.com noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal.” According to the Hawkins, Bessent told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the Treasury Department “would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs.” Hawkins indicates trade experts believe repayments “would be a logistical nightmare and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from businesses seeking reimbursements.” For more information on the underlying case, check out the case page in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing.” According to Shapiro, Chief Judge Moore indicated a party “definitively pivoted when it shifted from validity to infringement, and benefited from the flip-flop.” Shapiro said Chief Judge Moore “expressed frustration” that a party did not “explicitly argue[] the issue of judicial estoppel.”
Eileen McDermott authored a blog post for IPWatchdog discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.” According to McDermott, the Federal Circuit explained that, “contrary to the Board’s holding, the claims recite tangible structure and fall within one of the statutorily provided categories.” McDermott also noted how the court explained “the language ‘configured to’ in the claims indicates that the subsystem must be capable of using the claimed method,” but “the Board incorrectly found that the claims ‘recite practicing the method steps.’”