Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article suggesting the Federal Circuit in a recent opinion “explored and clarified” the limits on how a court can correct errors in patents;
- a blog post indicating another recent Federal Circuit decision answers the question of “[w]hat value” a patent has when it “expires before it issues”;
- an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s “unanimous decision in Hikma v. Amarin fundamentally altered the legal landscape for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, imposing a stricter standard for what constitutes patent infringement liability and potentially clearing a path for lower-cost alternatives to reach patients sooner”; and
- an article arguing President Trump’s “new Section 301 tariffs . . . run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to ‘speak clearly’ when authorizing the executive to make decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.'”
Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm authored an article for Law360 suggesting the Federal Circuit in a recent opinion “explored and clarified” the limits on how a court can correct errors in patents. The authors suggest its “obvious takeaway . . . is that patent attorneys should carefully proofread even provisional applications before filing them.” For more, see Enanta Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
Jarom Kesler published a blog post for IPWatchdog indicating a recent Federal Circuit decision answers the question of “[w]hat value” a patent has when it “expires before it issues.” According to Kesler, the answer is it “has no value; it provides neither exclusionary rights nor provisional rights.” To check out the decision in question, see In re Forest.
Legis 1 Editorial penned an article for Legis 1 explaining how the Supreme Court’s “unanimous decision in Hikma v. Amarin fundamentally altered the legal landscape for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, imposing a stricter standard for what constitutes patent infringement liability and potentially clearing a path for lower-cost alternatives to reach patients sooner.” The editorial suggests the decision “reinforces Congress’ original intent that generic manufacturers should be able to compete for unpatented uses without automatically incurring liability for how physicians prescribe their products.” For more see Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Ilya Somin authored an article for The Dispatch arguing President Trump’s “new Section 301 tariffs . . . run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to ‘speak clearly’ when authorizing the executive to make decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.'” According to Somin, “[e]ven if the courts conclude that Section 301 authorizes these new tariffs, they should also rule that their imposition violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, which limits the delegation of legislative power to the executive.”