Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power’”;
- an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy”;
- a blog post discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development”; and
- an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.”
Brett Rowland authored an article for The Center Square reporting how Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that, “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power.’” As Rowland notes, Consumer Watchdog’s attorneys wrote that Congress “failed to provide guardrails to limit the ability of the President to impose whatever tariffs he pleases.” If the Court sides with President Trump, however, Rowland adds, it “would cement the federal government’s newest revenue source—the highest import duties in nearly a century—in place, at least for now.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Allen Tucci wrote an article for Law.com explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy.” According to Tucci, “Trump and his lawyers have claimed that undoing the tariffs would oblige the U.S. government to refund hundreds of billions of dollars in previously collected tariff revenue and would disrupt planned investment flows, threaten federal programs and pose economic harm.” Tucci, however, suggests that “large, long-lived trade interventions carry significant structural costs, and reversing them cleanly is crucial to preserving legal norms and macroeconomic stability.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Ryan Abbott penned a blog post for PatentlyO discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development.” Abbott suggests that “current patent eligibility law as it pertains to abstract ideas best supports the AI development and innovation that we need in the United States.” Abbott argues the recently reintroduced Patent Eligibility Restoration Act “would be a significant shift for patent eligibility of computer-related patents, and one that would harm rather than help the development and use of AI.” For more information, check out the relevant case page in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
John Morrissett, Scott Bergeson, and Aaron Johnston authored an article for Law360 suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.” The authors insist “applicants and practitioners will need to preemptively adapt their strategies to address stronger and more sophisticated rejections and should consider the future potential of the USPTO’s AI tools when drafting applications.” They go on to say that “the use of AI will likely result in patents that are more thoroughly vetted, better supported and less vulnerable to post-grant challenges.”