Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
- an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
- an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
- a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”
Erwin Chemerinsky authored an article for SCOTUSblog discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision. Chemerinsky suggests “the many different opinions, especially among the conservative justices,” reveal the “underlying disagreements that could matter greatly in future cases.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Theodore Johnson authored an article for the Washington Post highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately.” Johnson suggests “[t]he Constitution made the branches equal in power, not in speed.” Johnson emphasizes that “[a]ny legal challenge will take months to adjudicate, only for a vigorous executive to cite a different statute and restart the process.” Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm authored an article for Law360 analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction.” The authors underscore that the “line between proper factual testimony applying a court’s claim construction and improper testimony applying a different construction is often hazy,” but the recent decision “suggests exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert is appropriate only in cases where that line is clearly crossed.” For more information on the case, check out the opinion in Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies.
Roy Wepner penned a blog post for IPWatchdog examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.” Wepner highlights how some inventors have alleged that patent applications “can be flagged for various reasons, including the possibility of publicity; old effective filing dates with broad claims; the identity of the applicant; and even politically-charged subject matter.” Wepner argues “the USPTO has no . . . discretion to flag and indefinitely shelve pending patent applications because someone views them as being of ‘special interest.’”