Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how “President Donald Trump said he might go to the Supreme Court to personally watch oral arguments on whether the bulk of his tariffs pass legal muster, in what would be a highly unusual spectacle”;
- an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied a move from a Montana lawmaker seeking to intervene as the high court takes up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff authority”;
- an article explaining how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed rules . . . that would prevent inter partes reviews challenging patents from being instituted in many scenarios”; and
- an article highlighting how “John Squires, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced . . . [that] he will reclaim authority over decisions on whether to allow challenges of approved patent applications under inter partes and post-grant reviews.”
Lauren Dezenski and Greg Stohr authored an article for Bloomberg reporting how “President Donald Trump said he might go to the Supreme Court to personally watch oral arguments on whether the bulk of his tariffs pass legal muster, in what would be a highly unusual spectacle.” The authors highlight how the president told reporters, “‘I’ve not done that, and I had some pretty big cases.” He also said, “I think it’s one of the most important cases ever brought, because we will be defenseless against the world.’” The authors point out that, “[w]hile presidents have previously visited the high court for events including the investitures of justices, visiting during oral arguments is rare.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Brett Rowland wrote an article for The Center Square discussing how “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied a move from a Montana lawmaker seeking to intervene as the high court takes up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff authority.” Rowland described how “Montana state Sen. Susan Webber, rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, and Rhonda and David Mountain Chief asked the nation’s highest court” for permission “to intervene in the case because Trump’s tariffs ‘directly burden cross-border commerce of these tribal plaintiffs, who operate small businesses and family ranches near the U.S.-Canada border.’” Rowland goes on to explain that, while “[t]he Supreme Court did not explain its decision on the request to intervene,” “Trump’s team at the Justice Department said Webber shouldn’t be allowed to intervene at this point, suggesting that Webber file a friend-of-the-court brief in the case instead.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 explaining how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed rules . . . that would prevent inter partes reviews challenging patents from being instituted in many scenarios.” Specifically, Davis notes, “[t]he proposed rules would require patent challengers to agree not to make many invalidity arguments in other venues.” Davis also explains how the proposed rules “would also prohibit the PTAB from reviewing patents that have already had their validity adjudicated, or when another proceeding will reach a validity decision before the board.” According to Davis, some attorneys have said that, “if the rules are adopted, it would likely eliminate the availability of PTAB proceedings in a large number of cases and impose risks on seeking review that could lead many potential challengers to decide to no longer bring cases at the board.”
Michelle Morgante authored an article for Law.com highlighting how “John Squires, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced . . . [that] he will reclaim authority over decisions on whether to allow challenges of approved patent applications under inter partes and post-grant reviews.” According to Morgante, “Squires . . . said the change was needed to remove perceived conflicts of interest, strengthen trust in the patent-approval process and realign the office’s procedures with the intent of the 2012 America Invents Act.” Morgante emphasizes a comment made by Dennis Crouch, a law professor at the University of Missouri, who said “the change is part of a set of rapid actions Squires has made to ‘dramatically restrict access to IPRs in ways that favor patent owners under the banner of restoring quiet title to issued patents.’”