Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing how the “skinny label” patent case at the Supreme Court ”has the potential to elucidate for how far induced infringement” can reach;
- an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires in an agency memo “added to the list of scenarios under which his office can strike down patent validity challenges in order to ‘protect American manufacturers and small business’”;
- a blog post observing how, “[u]nder today’s [utility] patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent,” and arguing “this restriction oppresses the American inventor”; and
- a commentary suggesting the Supreme Court’s tariff decision unravels “some . . . deeper themes and fault lines that the Court will grapple with in the future.”
Roshan Shrestha and Luke Shannon authored an article for Law360 discussing how the “skinny label” patent case at the Supreme Court ”has the potential to elucidate for how far induced infringement” can reach. The authors suggest “[h]ow the Supreme Court addresses these issues will determine not only this case, but the usable boundaries” of Section viii of the Hatch‑Waxman Act. For more information on the case, check out the case page in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Aruni Soni wrote an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires in an agency memo “added to the list of scenarios under which his office can strike down patent validity challenges in order to ‘protect American manufacturers and small business.’” Soni goes on to describe the three considerations: “whether the products made or licensed by the patent owner compete with American goods, whether they were manufactured in the US, or are related to investments in American manufacturing operations.”
John Powers penned a blog post for IPWatchdog observing how, “[u]nder today’s [utility] patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent,” and arguing “this restriction oppresses the American inventor.” Powers then points out how the Patent and Trademark Office recently implemented a Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program. According to Powers, the pilot program “is on the right track toward giving inventors the right to partially opt out of the one-size-fits-all system that is currently dictating recovery.”
Michael Dreeben authored a commentary for Lawfare suggesting the Supreme Court’s tariff decision unravels “some . . . deeper themes and fault lines that the Court will grapple with in the future.” Dreeben argues the decision “is an emphatic ruling in favor of congressional power over unilateral presidential action.” But, Dreeben continues, “the Supreme Court can do only so much; Congress must step up if it wishes to preserve its power.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.