Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a piece suggesting “President Donald Trump’s strategy for defending his tariffs in court is to make the case about himself as much as possible — and dare the justices to defy him”;
- an article discussing how John Squires, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “brings a blend of technical fluency, institutional scale and market-hardened pragmatism to the USPTO at a key moment for innovation”;
- a blog post commenting on how closing the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eliminated “the ability to recruit new examiners from across the country” and threatened to “undo years of progress”; and
- a blog post suggesting a Federal Circuit decision, which “presents a pivotal dispute concerning the intersection of patent law and ‘after-arising technology,’” is a “significant patent ruling of 2025.”
The Washington Post’s editorial board published a piece suggesting “President Donald Trump’s strategy for defending his tariffs in court is to make the case about himself as much as possible — and dare the justices to defy him.” According to the Post, President Trump “is emphasizing just how extraordinary the case is and how angry he would be if it doesn’t go his way.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Puya Partow-Navid and Brian Michaelis authored an article for Law360 discussing how John Squires, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “brings a blend of technical fluency, institutional scale and market-hardened pragmatism to the USPTO at a key moment for innovation.” The authors indicate “Squires’ opening acts, substantive and symbolic, signal a posture that is more welcoming to technological improvements, e.g., in software and AI, while insisting that patent quality be policed through Sections 102, 103 and 112, rather than blunt Section 101 exclusions.” The authors observe, however, that “early signals are not the same as institutional transformation” and suggest “the office will need sustained training, careful metrics and attention to operational details that make-or-break prosecution efficiency.”
Russell Slifer, who served as the first Regional Director of the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, penned a blog post for IPWatchdog commenting on how closing the Rocky Mountain office eliminated “the ability to recruit new examiners from across the country” and threatened “to undo years of progress.” Slifer notes that, besides the fact that communities across the Mountain West have lost “direct access to USPTO resources,” the “experienced examiner corps is shrinking, and the backlog of unexamined patent applications—once dramatically reduced by regional hiring—is surging once again. Slifer suggests that, “[i]nstead of shutting down the Denver office, the Trump administration could have pursued far less disruptive alternatives, such as leasing a smaller footprint or sharing space with another federal agency.”
Lisa Mueller wrote a blog post for Patent Panorama suggesting a Federal Circuit decision, which “presents a pivotal dispute concerning the intersection of patent law and ‘after-arising technology,’” is a “significant patent ruling of 2025.” Mueller points out how “[t]he case highlights competing policy considerations: encouraging pioneering inventions through broad patent protection versus ensuring adequate disclosure to enable follow-on innovation.” Mueller goes on to say that the “Federal Circuit’s approach prioritizes the former, while critics argue it undermines the constitutional quid pro quo of the patent system.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in In re Entresto.