Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a piece indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25”;
- an article suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue”;
- an article identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape”; and
- a blog post discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”
James Romoser penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25.” Romoser explains how “the announcement of three upcoming opinion days prompted speculation that a tariff decision could come soon.” Based on a comment by Justice Jackson, Romoser suggests “the time it takes to rule on Trump’s tariffs is the result of the court’s usual process for a case that raises ‘lots of nuanced legal issues.’” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Brett Rowland authored an article for The Center Square suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue.” Rowland suggests that, “[i]f the Supreme Court rules against Trump on tariffs, it could take months to unwind the taxes under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,” and “[r]efunds could be complicated as well.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Fievel Lim, Michael Green, and John Molenda authored an article for Law360 identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape.” The authors highlight how inter partes review and post grant review proceedings “have functioned as potent weapons for challenging biologics-related patents,” but, they say, “[r]ecent policy changes by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may in some cases blunt those weapons.” The authors explain how “patent-owner-friendly institution procedures . . . may induce patent challengers to employ PGRs over IPRs or opt for other procedures entirely, such as ex parte reexaminations.”
Gene Quinn penned a blog post for IPWatchdog discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.” Quinn notes how “post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review” given that “ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity.” Quinn suggests the “shift away from IPR and toward ex parte reexamination is not merely procedural—it reflects a deeper strategic recalibration by petitioners.”