Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
- a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel”;
- a blog post arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion”; and
- an article addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.”
Adam Feldman authored an article for Legalytics analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case. Feldman suggests the Court is “wrestling with doctrinal complexity, likely producing multiple opinions, and possibly negotiating to build a broader coalition than the 6-3 [decision] that oral arguments suggested.” Feldman goes on to predict that “the government will lose” because “[s]ix justices expressed substantial skepticism at oral arguments” and the “timing patterns fit normal complexity for a 6-3 or 7-2 decision with multiple opinions.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Jason Shull authored a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel because it raises a familiar but persistently unsettled question: When does otherwise lawful conduct by a generics manufacturer cross the line into induced patent infringement?” Shull points out how the Federal Circuit’s earlier decision “has prompted closer scrutiny of conduct that many generics manufacturers have long considered routine.” Shull also highlights how, “[f]or practitioners, the lesson is not simply to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, but to recognize that FDA compliance and patent risk can no longer be evaluated in isolation.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Gene Quinn penned a blog post for IPWatchdog arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion.” Quinn suggests “artificial intelligence (AI) in all its forms, machine learning, computer vision, cryptocurrency and blockchain technology, FinTech, cryptographic techniques, autonomous systems, cybersecurity, robotics, cloud systems, medical imaging, predictive health analytics, are all caught up in . . . uncertainty because the Supreme Court refuses to define what is an unpatentable abstract idea.” Quinn, however, argues “there is a vehicle” for the Court to clarify the doctrine by granting a petition for certiorari filed by United States Automobile Association. For more information on the case, check out the case page in United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.
Tracey Truitt wrote an article for the St. Louis Business Journal addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.” According to Truitt, “expanded and increasingly formalized discretionary denials have materially reduced institution rates and shifted leverage toward patent owners at the threshold stage.” Truitt, nevertheless, emphasizes that, “for cases that proceed to final written decision,” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “remains a demanding forum in which a substantial portion of challenged claims continue to be invalidated.”