Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law”;
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
- a blog post addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter”; and
- an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.”
Clark Packard and Alfredo Obregon authored an article for the Cato Institute arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law.” The authors suggest that, “[i]f the president wants the authority to impose these sweeping tariffs, the proper course is to go to Congress and ask for it.” For more information on the underlying case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.” Shapiro explains how “Tesla argued that Section 314 of the America Invents Act requires the director to look at the PTAB petition and institute or reject it based on the likelihood that the automaker would prevail.” According to Tesla, Shapiro recounts, “the agency has no ‘general discretion to invent new, additional criteria beyond those identified by Congress.’” But, Shapiro observes, the Federal Circuit “said the agency could rely on the ‘time-to-trial factor.’” For more information on the case, check out the opinion in In re Tesla, Inc.
Lisa Mueller wrote a blog post for Patent Panorama addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter.” Mueller suggests the decision “confirmed that, for composition-of-matter claims involving biological materials, the proper eligibility inquiry is the Chakrabarty ‘markedly different characteristics’ test, rather than the Alice/Mayo two-step framework.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. We will be posting an opinion summary soon.
Davis Shugrue and Ed Lebow authored an article for Reuters reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.” The authors explain how the “ITC issues questionnaires to producers, importers, and purchasers during these investigations” to determine whether a U.S. industry is materially injured. The authors also suggest that “practitioners should prepare to comply with more stringent requirements to obtain confidential treatment for submitted information.” For more information on these cases, check out the case pages in In re United States I and In re United States II.