Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a commentary arguing the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting President Trump’s tariffs “may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century”;
- an article arguing against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s suggestion that “refunds could take years, entangled in further litigation and administrative delay” after the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s tariffs;
- a blog post commenting on how, “[i]n a series of nonprecedential orders issued between February 24 and 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected every theory that petitioners offered for why” the Patent and Trademark Office’s “discretionary denial of inter partes review should be subject to judicial oversight”; and
- an article highlighting how the U.S. government and other amici “have warned the U.S. Supreme Court” that the Federal Circuit’s decision “that allowed a patent case involving a so-called skinny label to proceed threatens the availability of low-cost generic drugs.”
David French authored a commentary for the New York Times arguing the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting President Trump’s tariffs “may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century.” French suggests the Court “blocked a monumental presidential power grab — one so big and so bold that it threatened the foundation of our constitutional system.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Neal Katyal authored an article for the Washington Post arguing against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s suggestion that “refunds could take years, entangled in further litigation and administrative delay” after the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s tariffs. Katyal explains how “these refunds are not flowing to foreign governments” but instead are “owed to U.S. manufacturers, retailers, family-owned importers and midsize companies that employ American workers and invest in American communities.” Again, for more information on the underlying case, check out the relevant case page.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post commenting on how, “[i]n a series of nonprecedential orders issued between February 24 and 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected every theory that petitioners offered for why” the Patent and Trademark Office’s “discretionary denial of inter partes review should be subject to judicial oversight.” Crouch highlights how “[t]he mandamus petitioners had hoped their varied factual theories would find cracks in the wall.” Crouch ultimately characterizes the result as “complete insulation from court challenge.”
Ryan Davis authored an article for Law360 highlighting how the U.S. government and other amici “have warned the U.S. Supreme Court” that the Federal Circuit’s decision “that allowed a patent case involving a so-called skinny label to proceed threatens the availability of low-cost generic drugs.” According to Davis, the government . . . said . . . the Federal Circuit’s holding . . . will make generics companies reluctant to use the skinny label pathway.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.