FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel”;
• a blog post arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion”; and
• an article addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.”

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

• an article explaining how the Supreme Court drafts and issues opinions and “how that process might be playing out in the tariffs dispute”;
• an article discussing how the “Court of International Trade . . . updated its mandatory corporate disclosure form to include information about third-party litigation funders,” as the court is “already seeing a spike in refund disputes over Trump administration tariffs”;
• an article arguing “major shifts in policy will influence patents and trademarks in 2026”; and
• a blog post exploring patent “obviousness rejections that pile on reference after reference, sometimes combining five, seven, or even a dozen separate documents to reconstruct the claimed invention.”

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

• an article arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex”;
• an article suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients”;
• an article arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page”; and
• a blog post highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026.

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

• an article considering whether the Supreme Court will rule that “President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal”;
• an article providing a “statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2025”;
• a blog post discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise discretion to institute [American Invents Act] trials;” and
• a blog post analyzing how inter partes review “institution rates under Director John Squires have begun to climb.”

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

• an article highlighting White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment that “the White House has a ‘backup plan that’s really solid,’ . . . saying Trump would immediately impose tariffs of 10% ‘to make up most of the room’ from the IEEPA tariffs being struck down”;
• a blog post discussing how a “group of conservative leaders . . . sent a letter” to the Trump Administration “strongly supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . issued in October”; and
• an article examining how AI-assisted inventions, particularly in biologics innovation, “raise fundamental questions about how those inventions are disclosed and claimed in patent applications”;
• an article reporting how “USAA wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling” by the Federal Circuit “that set aside two jury awards totaling almost $223 million in patent-infringement cases.”

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 Supreme Court is “set to start a four-week recess . . . without having ruled on pending challenges to most of the duties Trump has imposed over the last year”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a “skinny labels” patent fight that could have “broad consequences for generic drug makers”; and
• a blog post predicting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “is likely to undergo a dramatic transformation in 2026 based upon the convergence of two parallel developments.”

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

• an article predicting the “International Trade Commission will have an active 2026 managing its docket of patent cases due to expanded access for patent owners and operational delays”;
• a blog post discussing how former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu testified at the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee hearing and “spoke to several ways that our nation’s adversaries and trading partners alike are weakening American IP rights and how those issues should be addressed by U.S. policymakers”;
• an article reporting how “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires has denied 47 requests for America Invents Act patent reviews and granted eight other petitions, continuing his practice of spurning most patent challenges that reach his desk since he took over the handling of institution decisions”; and
• an article examining “a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that [inter partes review] estoppel does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.”

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 longer the Supreme Court delays its tariff decision, the better it is for President Trump”;
• an article highlighting how “[t]he year 2025 was eventful for patent attorneys”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court left “intact a line of decisions that treat foreign-language marks through the lens of direct translation”; and
• a blog post analyzing “seven patent issues from 2025 that deserve ongoing consideration.”

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

• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases”;
• an article analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce”;
• an article reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension”; and
• a blog post commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.”

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.