Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett “predicted that the justices will rule in the White House’s favor” in President Trump’s tariffs cases;
- an article discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit will kick-start 2026 continuing to grapple with a suite of challenges seeking to block significant changes to patent validity review procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
- an article arguing “the Supreme Court should grant review in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Co.” to clarify the Loper Bright doctrine.
Jason Ma wrote an article for Fortune reporting how National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett “predicted that the justices will rule in the White House’s favor” in President Trump’s tariffs cases. Ma references Hassett’s comment that the Supreme Court is unlikely “‘to call for widespread refunds, because it would be an administrative problem to get those refunds out.’” Ma, however, also indicates “companies are already positioning themselves to get their money back in the event the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs.” For more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit will kick-start 2026 continuing to grapple with a suite of challenges seeking to block significant changes to patent validity review procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office.” Shapiro notes “[t]wo varieties of appellate action are pending at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, each targeting Trump administration efforts that have made it harder for infringement-suit defendants to challenge patents’ validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”
Timothy Hsieh penned an article for Law360 arguing “the Supreme Court should grant review in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Co.” to clarify the Loper Bright doctrine. Hsieh suggests Lynk Labs is the ideal vehicle because “the interpretive issue it presents is universal: May a court sidestep Loper Bright by adopting an agency’s policy-driven interpretation instead of conducting independent textual analysis?” Hsieh argues that, in Lynk Labs, the Federal Circuit “claimed to apply Congress’ language, but its reasoning closely tracked USPTO policy preferences — effectively restoring Chevron-style deference under a different label.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.