Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article highlighting White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment that “the White House has a ‘backup plan that’s really solid,’ . . . saying Trump would immediately impose tariffs of 10% ‘to make up most of the room’ from the IEEPA tariffs being struck down”;
- a blog post discussing how a “group of conservative leaders . . . sent a letter” to the Trump Administration “strongly supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . issued in October”; and
- an article examining how AI-assisted inventions, particularly in biologics innovation, “raise fundamental questions about how those inventions are disclosed and claimed in patent applications”;
- an article reporting how “USAA wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling” by the Federal Circuit “that set aside two jury awards totaling almost $223 million in patent-infringement cases.”
Alison Durkee authored an article for Forbes highlighting White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment that “the White House has a ‘backup plan that’s really solid,’ . . . saying Trump would immediately impose tariffs of 10% ‘to make up most of the room’ from the IEEPA tariffs being struck down.” According to Durkee, “[t]hose 10% tariffs would likely be imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows presidents to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to resolve trade imbalances.” Durkee adds that “Hassett said the administration is ‘highly confident’ the Supreme Court is ‘going to side with us,’ even as justices signaled during oral arguments in November they were skeptical of the president’s sweeping fees.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Eileen McDermott penned a blog post for IPWatchdog discussing how a “group of conservative leaders . . . sent a letter” to the Trump Administration “strongly supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . issued in October.” McDermott explains how the “NPRM modifies the rules of practice for inter partes reviews . . . before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” She reports the “rules have been broadly welcomed by IP holders and practitioners, and broadly opposed by those who want to preserve the option to easily challenge patents.” McDermott notes how “[t]he 22 conservative leaders who wrote to the Trump Administration . . . said ‘the proposal would help restore fairness, efficiency, and predictability to patent adjudication.’”
Sanandan Malhotra wrote an article for Law 360 examining how AI-assisted inventions, particularly in biologics innovation, “raise fundamental questions about how those inventions are disclosed and claimed in patent applications.” Malhotra indicates “the enablement and written description requirements . . . continue to serve as gatekeepers for patent validity,” and that “for biologics and other complex therapeutics, those requirements are being applied with increasing rigor by both the USPTO and the courts.” Going forward, Malhotra suggests, “successful patent strategies in AI-assisted drug discovery will be those that treat enablement as a present-day design constraint, rather than an afterthought.”
Patrick Danner authored an article for the San Antonio Express News reporting how “USAA wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling” by the Federal Circuit “that set aside two jury awards totaling almost $223 million in patent-infringement cases.” Danner explains how the Federal Circuit “determined that USAA’s patent claims are ineligible for patent protection because they relate to ‘the abstract idea of depositing a check using a mobile device.’” For more information on the case, check out the case page in United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.