Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
- a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
- a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
- an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”
Laura Curtis, Zoe Tillman, and Erik Larson penned an article for Bloomberg reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court.” The authors explain that “[a]t the heart of the dispute is whether the judge has authority to order refunds nationwide for all importers who paid tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, even if they did not file suit in the trade court.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed.” Crouch notes the “government’s brief barely engages with the gap-filling question, instead grounding prosecution laches in a different line of cases.”
Thomas Cotter published a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789. Cotter also highlights how “the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office filed a Statement of Interest . . . contending . . . . that injunctive relief can be an appropriate remedy for the infringement of a patents owned by a non-practicing entity.”
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law 360 explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.” Davis notes a court spokesperson said the National Courts Building “is currently undergoing significant, internal infrastructure upgrades that require portions of the building to be inaccessible for safety reasons.”