Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%”;
- an article discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it;
- a blog post arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112”; and
- an article suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.”
Jason Ma authored an article for Fortune indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%.” According to Ma, these experts suggest that, “‘[w]hile the sitting three liberal justices are expected to oppose” the tariffs, “Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett—both with pro-business leanings—may also side against’” President Trump. On the other hand, Ma notes, “even if the high court goes against Trump’s tariffs, that won’t put an end to his trade war as numerous other legal avenues are available to levy duties.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump.
Phillip Magness and Marc Wheat wrote an article for National Review discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it. According to the authors, however, that Act is “discredited and effectively repealed.” They say “[o]ne might have hoped that Smoot–Hawley’s inauspicious history would preclude the White House from turning to it, but apparently that’s not the case.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Roy Wepner penned a blog post for IPWatchdog arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112.” According to Wepner, the Federal Circuit’s decision in question “opens a Pandora’s Box of complications—all of which have the potential of destabilizing the patent system and undermining the patent system’s constitutional objective to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’” For more information, check out the relevant case page in MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.” Kass explains that, “[w]hile Squires could set a new patenting standard at the office, its effect will be limited if the Federal Circuit isn’t on board.” According to Kass, moreover, “[t]he Federal Circuit is somewhat unpredictable on this front because its judges admit they’re not on the same page about patent eligibility and have joined the chorus of voices unsuccessfully asking the Supreme Court for guidance.”