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 National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett “predicted that the justices will rule in the White House’s favor” in President Trump’s tariffs cases;
• an article discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit will kick-start 2026 continuing to grapple with a suite of challenges seeking to block significant changes to patent validity review procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
• an article arguing “the Supreme Court should grant review in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Co.” to clarify the Loper Bright doctrine.

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

• a blog post observing how “[t]he year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• an article examining how a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit expanded prosecution disclaimers to include examiner-defined species — independent and distinct inventions within a patent application — in restriction practice”; and
• an article discussing “whether importers that have already paid the tariffs . . . would be entitled to refunds” and “how might that refund process work” if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs.

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

• an article reporting how “Costco has sued the Trump administration for a refund of the tariffs it has paid on imported goods”;
• an article discussing how “[t]here are a number of alternative statutes that the administration could rely on to issue” tariffs “instead of IEEPA” if President Trump’s tariffs are struck down by the Supreme Court;
• a blog post arguing recent Federal Circuit decisions “establish that the ‘final and nonappealable’ language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of [inter partes review] institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges”; and
• a blog post recounting how the Supreme Court denied certiorari in “a case that asked the Justices to clarify U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent around using ‘after-arising technology’ to hold a patent invalid in the context of patent-infringement suits.”

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.”

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 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.”

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 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.

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

• an article suggesting “[t]he Supreme Court appeared skeptical . . . that President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs”;
• an article similarly reporting a “majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical . . . about President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs, putting at risk a cornerstone of his agenda in the biggest legal test yet of his boundary-pushing presidency”;
• an article also indicating “U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts . . . over the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs,” but recognizing that “some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case”; and
• a blog post suggesting “a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs” on the ground “that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.”

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

• an article arguing how, in President Trump’s tariffs case, “[t]here is some reason to think the [major question] doctrine may disappear”;
• an article suggesting President Trump’s “universal tariffs are a legally unprecedented use of authority” granted by Congress;
• an article analyzing how “[t]he announcement that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires will now make all decisions on whether to institute America Invents Act patent reviews is expected to reshape litigation”; and
• a blog post highlighting how the National Weather Service Employees Organization and the Patent Office Professional Association “filed a motion for a preliminary injunction” alleging recent Executive Orders “unlawfully threaten employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively” based on retaliation.