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’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities”;
- a blog post discussing “whether amicus briefs matter” in President Trump’s tariff case;
- an article highlighting how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently stated “that they believe legislation is the best path to getting more clarity on which inventions are eligible for patents”; and
- a blog post noting the Federal Circuit recently “denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . Director decides whether to institute inter partes review . . . proceedings.”
Josh Wingrove authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how “President Donald Trump’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities.” Wingrove reports the administration is “looking to replace the levies as quickly as possible.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Erwin Chemerinsky penned a blog post for SCOTUSblog discussing “whether amicus briefs matter” in President Trump’s tariff case. Chemerinsky highlights how “there are fewer amicus briefs than in other recent high-profile cases and . . . there are far more on one side than the other.” Chemerinsky wonders “whether the conservative justices are more likely to rule against Trump’s tariffs once they see the lineup of conservative amici arrayed against them.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 highlighting how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently stated “that they believe legislation is the best path to getting more clarity on which inventions are eligible for patents.” Davis notes how the judges said at a recent conference “that they don’t think the U.S. Supreme Court is willing or able to sort out the contentious issues surrounding patent eligibility,” but “expressed measured optimism that Congress could do that, with a bill like the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act.”
Eileen McDermott penned a blog post for IPWatchdog noting the Federal Circuit recently “denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . Director decides whether to institute inter partes review . . . proceedings.” McDermott points out how the Federal Circuit “not[ed] that mandamus relief is not ordinarily available for decisions on institution because ‘Congress committed institution decisions to the Director’s discretion. . . and protected that exercise of discretion from judicial review by making such determinations final and nonappealable.’” McDermott suggests more petitions are expected.