Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex”;
- an article suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients”;
- an article arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page”; and
- a blog post highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026.
Jason Willick authored an article for the Washington Post arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex.” Willick suggests “uncertainty around Trump’s IEEPA tariffs is affecting businesses . . . Congress . . . and the Federal Reserve, which has to factor in tariffs to its forecasts for inflation.” Willick wonders if “the justices are trying to engineer a way to block the tariffs only prospectively, without inviting an avalanche of lawsuits over refunds.” For more information on the case, check out our case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Christopher Yasiejko and Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients.” According to the authors, the “case’s ramifications extend to physicians and patients, because skinny labels allow generics to hit the market earlier, and may also affect other patent-heavy industries where induced-infringement theories can also be applied.” For more information on the case, check out our case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Bijal Vakil and Will Wray authored an article for Law360 arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page.” The authors note how the “USPTO made its policy objective explicit: to ‘recognize and promote artificial intelligence (AI) innovation’ and to rein in ‘overbroad Section 101 rejections’ that were ‘categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection’ and ‘jeopardiz[ing] America’s leadership in critical emerging technologies.’” The authors point out, however, that a recent Federal Circuit decision held that “merely invoking machine learning, without specific improvements to the models themselves, does not confer eligibility.”
Eileen McDermott penned a blog post for IPWatchdog highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026. According to McDermott, Stewart “urged patent owners responding to petitions at the PTAB to tell their stories and petitioners to focus on patents in need of clear ‘error correction.’” McDermott explains how Stewart said that “she felt ‘right out of the gate [after the America Invents Act (AIA)], we got off on the wrong foot with discretionary denials.’” McDermott explains how “Stewart . . . wanted to create more stability by going back to the original intent of the AIA, which was to weed out ‘bad’ patents.” McDermott indicates, moreover, how Stewart suggested that “inventors have strayed too far away from effectively telling the stories of their inventions.” As a result, McDermott indicates, Stewart implored inventors to “[t]ell your story and talk about secondary considerations.’”