Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article suggesting “[t]he longer the Supreme Court delays its tariff decision, the better it is for President Trump”;
- an article highlighting how “[t]he year 2025 was eventful for patent attorneys”;
- an article discussing how the Supreme Court left “intact a line of decisions that treat foreign-language marks through the lens of direct translation”; and
- a blog post analyzing “seven patent issues from 2025 that deserve ongoing consideration.”
Jim Edwards authored an article for Fortune suggesting “[t]he longer the Supreme Court delays its tariff decision, the better it is for President Trump.” According to Edwards, many Wall Street analysts agree that, as time goes by, “the tariff issue becomes less and less dramatic,” and that, “in the bigger macro picture, the tariffs are less significant than predicted.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Richard Blaustein authored an article for the D.C. Bar Blog highlighting how “[t]he year 2025 was eventful for patent attorneys.” He points to patent law developments “revolved around case law focused on AI and machine learning applications, as well as a shake-up at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” In particular, he highlights a decision of the Federal Circuit “that using generic machine learning models — even if faster or more efficient — constitutes an abstract idea, which is not patent-eligible subject matter.” Additionally, he notes, “current USPTO Director John Squires initiated major policy changes that favor the expanded granting and upholding of patents for technologies, such as AI and cryptocurrency.” For more information on the case Blaustein highlighted, check out the case page in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
An article posted on The Fashion Law discusses how the Supreme Court left “intact a line of decisions that treat foreign-language marks through the lens of direct translation.” The author explains that the Court’s denial of review “leaves standing rulings from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which found that ‘vetements’ – the French word for ‘clothing’ – is generic or, at best, merely descriptive when used in connection with apparel and related retail services, a conclusion the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO analyzing “seven patent issues from 2025 that deserve ongoing consideration.” Crouch suggests “[t]he defining patent law story of 2025 was [a] major slowdown (even shutdown) of inter partes review as a viable patent challenge mechanism.” Crouch also notes that “[j]uries continue to find infringement and award substantial damages, but the Federal Circuit has become increasingly willing to vacate those awards on evidentiary sufficiency grounds.” After noting how the Federal Circuit “held that only natural persons can be inventors under the Patent Act, precluding patents that name AI systems as inventors,” he argues that holding has “left open the question of how to treat patents on inventions where AI systems played a significant role in the inventive process, so long as a human was named as inventor.”