Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article considering whether the Supreme Court will rule that “President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal”;
- an article providing a “statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2025”;
- a blog post discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise discretion to institute [American Invents Act] trials;” and
- a blog post analyzing how inter partes review “institution rates under Director John Squires have begun to climb.”
Jim Edwards wrote an article for Fortune considering whether the Supreme Court will rule that “President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal.” Edwards suggests the “expectation on Wall Street is that the court will rule that the president does not have the power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on routine international trade.” Edwards indicates, however, that an alleged delay in the court’s ruling “has caused some to speculate that the court, which at oral arguments appeared to be skeptical of the White House’s arguments, may now be leaning toward the Trump Administration.” For more information on the case, check out our case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Dan Bagatell authored an article for Law360 providing a “statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2025.” Bagatell points out how the court “significantly increased its output in 2025 but still could not keep pace with the input, resulting in ever-longer delays to oral argument and disposition.” Bagatell also notes that, although the court “heard proportionally more cases from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . the court’s affirmance rate fell in 2025—primarily due to an increase in mixed decisions.” Bagatell suggests “[p]atent owners and applicants continued to fare poorly overall, especially when appealing from adverse decisions.” In particular, he notes, the “court decided fewer patent-eligibility cases, and it held claims patent-eligible only once all year.”
Carl Kukkonen wrote a blog post for Jones Day’s PTAB litigation blog discussing how the USPTO “designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise discretion to institute AIA trials.” Kukkonen explains how the “precedential set addresses four recurring scenarios: joinder ‘copycat’ petitions, one-year time-bar fairness, repeat challenges after a non-instituted [post grant review], and the Office’s policy favoring timely PGRs over IPRs for newly issued patents.” Kukkonen goes on to explain that the decisions designated informative guide practice across several themes: ‘settled expectations’ as patents age, parallel litigation dynamics, inconsistent positions on claim construction, large-scale disputes, and examiner error.” Kukkonen suggests USPTO Director “Squires has converted an interim, holistic framework into settled guidance: timely, well-justified challenges that respect statutory deadlines, avoid duplicative litigation tactics, and present coherent positions across forums will fare best under the Office’s renewed approach to discretionary denial.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO analyzing how inter partes review “institution rates under Director John Squires have begun to climb.” Crouch suggests “the uptick signals something meaningful: the IPR system is not dead, and a discernible framework for institution has begun to emerge from what initially appeared to be an era of blanket denials.” According to Crouch, the “uptick in rates . . . reflects some combination of Director recalibration and petitioner adaptation.”