Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post observing how “[t]he year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
- an article examining how a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit expanded prosecution disclaimers to include examiner-defined species — independent and distinct inventions within a patent application — in restriction practice”; and
- an article discussing “whether importers that have already paid the tariffs . . . would be entitled to refunds” and “how might that refund process work” if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs.
Stephen Schreiner penned a blog post for IPWatchdog observing how 2025 was a year “of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” Schreiner suggested “[t]he magnitude and rate at which changes were implemented is unprecedented,” noting how the “size and role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . in America Invents Act . . . proceedings like inter partes reviews . . . was completely overhauled.” Schreiner indicated he “expect[s] that the Director will continue to implement new initiatives to improve the quality and timeliness of the patent process in 2026.”
Peter Gao, Cory Smith and George Chen authored an article for Law360 examining how a recent precedential opinion issued by Federal Circuit “expanded prosecution disclaimers to include examiner-defined species — independent and distinct inventions within a patent application — in restriction practice.” The authors suggest “examiner interpretation of multiple species in the claims of a patent application are now considered in claim construction when the prosecution history of the patent shows a clear and consistent picture of the patent examiner diligently managing the boundaries of the claimed subject matter across multiple patent applications to ensure that the integrity of the initial restriction requirement was maintained.”
Amy Howe wrote an article for SCOTUSblog discussing “whether importers that have already paid the tariffs . . . would be entitled to refunds” and “how might that refund process work” if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs. Howe notes how Neal Katyal suggests “the Supreme Court could mitigate the impact of its ruling by ‘limit[ing] its decision to prospective relief.’” Howe further describes another alternative proposed that would “give Congress time to adopt a fix.” For more information on the underlying case challenging these tariffs, check out Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.