Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article explaining how the Supreme Court drafts and issues opinions and “how that process might be playing out in the tariffs dispute”;
- an article discussing how the “Court of International Trade . . . updated its mandatory corporate disclosure form to include information about third-party litigation funders,” as the court is “already seeing a spike in refund disputes over Trump administration tariffs”;
- an article arguing “major shifts in policy will influence patents and trademarks in 2026”; and
- a blog post exploring patent “obviousness rejections that pile on reference after reference, sometimes combining five, seven, or even a dozen separate documents to reconstruct the claimed invention.”
Amy Howe wrote an article for SCOTUSblog explaining how the Supreme Court drafts and issues opinions and “how that process might be playing out in the tariffs dispute.” Howe points out how “the conventional wisdom after the oral argument was that a majority of the justices were skeptical of Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” Howe says that, “even if that proves to be true, it was not necessarily clear that there was a consensus on why Trump would lack that authority.” Howe goes on to say that “the tariffs dispute could be one in which there are multiple opinions” and that “it would make sense that this is taking some time to draft.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Emily Siegel authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how the “Court of International Trade . . . updated its mandatory corporate disclosure form to include information about third-party litigation funders,” as the court is “already seeing a spike in refund disputes over Trump administration tariffs.” Siegel notes how “the large refunds potentially at stake could make [refund suits] attractive for funders.” According to Siegel, the court’s clerk, Gina Justice, explained that the court’s “move is designed ‘to provide greater transparency.’”
Rosaleen Chou, Ted Cannon, and Philip Nelson authored an article for Law360 arguing “major shifts in policy will influence patents and trademarks in 2026.” For patents, the authors predict “patent applicants in 2026 can expect policies and programs favorable to patent allowance and issuance.” The authors note how, “[i]n 2025, the USPTO . . . implemented procedural changes at the PTAB” that “are widely viewed to favor patent owners,” and they suggest that this trend is going to continue in 2026. In terms of trademark practice, the authors suggest “[e]fficiency and technological advancement are the primary goals for trademark practice at the USPTO in 2026.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO exploring patent “obviousness rejections that pile on reference after reference, sometimes combining five, seven, or even a dozen separate documents to reconstruct the claimed invention.” Crouch describes patent attorney John Goodhue’s proposal to use “a tiered presumption framework keyed to reference count.” Crouch, however, suggests “creating numerical thresholds and novel presumptions is unnecessary.” Crouch suggests, “rather than counting references, courts and examiners should be asking whether the record genuinely supports the demanding inference that a skilled artisan would have simultaneously pursued every thread the examiner has woven together and also and expected the weave to hold.”