FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how “President Donald Trump’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities”;
• a blog post discussing “whether amicus briefs matter” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article highlighting how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently stated “that they believe legislation is the best path to getting more clarity on which inventions are eligible for patents”; and
• a blog post noting the Federal Circuit recently “denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . Director decides whether to institute inter partes review . . . proceedings.”

Earlier this month, the Court heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP, LLC, raises questions relating to Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Katana, the patent owner, sued Micron for infringement in federal district court. Longhorn, its licensing affiliate, was then sued by Micron in Idaho state court under the Act. Longhorn and Katana now appeal the district court’s order requiring an $8 million bond as a precondition to Katana pursuing its patent infringement claims. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article suggesting that, in deciding President Trump’s tariff case, “Chief Justice John Roberts faces a defining challenge as he enters his third decade leading the Supreme Court”;
• an article considering “[w]hat alternatives” the Trump Administration might “pursue if the court strikes down its use of IEEPA”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have provided “some key decisions and guidance” as companies “encounter opportunities to secure patents on their advances” when they use artificial intelligence.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, we posted a recap of the oral argument in President Trump’s case pending at the Court. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; an amicus brief was filed in a trademark case; and the Court denied four petitions raising questions in two patent cases and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed, raising questions related to claim construction, patent eligibility, and appellate procedure. The court also denied four petitions for en banc rehearing. Those petitions raised questions related to the presumption of validity and the written description requirement, Rule 36, attorneys’ fees, and obviousness, and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article commenting on how “[f]acts . . . matter and should play an important, even dominant, role” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
• an article arguing “the economic effects of the Supreme Court’s decision about the reach of the IEEPA may prove marginal at most” and, by contrast, “[i]t will be the legal precedent and the Court’s rationale that will matter most to the overall trajectory of presidential power”;
• an article suggesting that, “[i]f the president believes that global tariffs are in the national interest, he should take his case to Congress”; and
• a blog post suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “appears to be using institutional silence as a policy instrument to strengthen patent rights by avoiding substantive review.”

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Trump to impose tariffs for national emergencies. The Court also granted review to consider, even if IEEPA authorizes the tariffs, whether the Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the President. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing “the process for paying back billions in tariffs the Trump administration has collected, should the justices rule those duties are illegal”;
• an article arguing “[a]n unusual combination of Supreme Court justices appears to be coalescing to strike down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs”;
• a blog post predicting “a 6-3 vote against the tariffs, with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting”; and
• an article explaining how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has changed dramatically the manner in which it reviews petitions for inter partes review.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a government contract case, and a pro se case; briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and a takings case; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a Rule 36 case and two pro se cases; five amicus briefs were filed in a government contract case; and three petitions were denied, one in a Rule 36 case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article highlighting that “the major questions doctrine was a focal point” during the oral argument for President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a blog post discussing how, during the oral argument in President Trump’s tariffs case, “special attention” was given “to one verb in particular: the verb ‘regulate’”;
• an article suggesting, “[i]f the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, the outcome will not be national collapse but relief”; and
• an article arguing “extensive quotes from Mr. Trump” in a key filing made by the government “may change the legal calculus” in President Trump’s tariffs case.