FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article predicting the Supreme Court will “treat the president’s newfound tariff power much like . . . previous executive actions that ‘discover’ new authority in vague statutes—and strike it down”;
• an article arguing the President’s foreign affairs power “does not give the president any authority over tariffs beyond what Congress clearly delegates”;
• a blog post discussing what the author describes as a “disturbing and inexplicable trend—a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches”; and
• an article reporting how Judge Newman’s counsel said in a recent filing that “[t]he government shutdown is no excuse to halt proceedings” in her case “for reinstatement to the Federal Circuit.”

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

• an article indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%”;
• an article discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it;
• a blog post arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112”; and
• an article suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.”

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

• an article arguing “the legal case against the Trump tariffs is strong”;
• a blog post indicating there has been a trend of “increased willingness of the Federal Circuit to reject jury verdicts, especially in situations involving potentially inadequate expert testimony”;
• an article reporting how, “[o]n the same day the federal government shut down, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would permanently close its Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office in Denver”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office laid off some employees . . . affecting around 1% of the agency’s workforce.”

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

• an article commenting on “the Supreme Court’s next move” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “confirms that Trump has alternate paths forward, should the Supreme Court strike down his emergency duties on most of global commerce”;
• an article suggesting a “dramatic change in how inter partes reviews are handled . . . has drawn sharp criticism from law professors and technology companies, setting up a high stakes battle at the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article highlighting how some attorneys are looking to John Squires, the newly confirmed director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “to provide clear rules and consistent practices, saying the current requirements keep changing.”

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

• an article detailing how Judge Newman “asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider her constitutional challenge to the law her colleagues used to suspend her from hearing new cases”;
• a blog post reflecting on how former Federal Circuit Judge O’Malley recently “offered insights into . . . the evolving patent law”; and
• a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit took “a different analytical path” in a recent decision “focusing on the claim limitation ‘clinically proven effective.’”

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

• a blog post reporting on V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump and how “[t]he Trump administration . . . urged the Supreme Court to uphold President Donald Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs”;
• a commentary discussing how “President Donald Trump’s global tariffs and his bid to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook . . . are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide how far he can go to reshape and control the levers of the economy”;
• a blog post explaining how “[r]ecent cases involving design patents on appeal to . . . the Federal Circuit highlight significant developments and issues”; and
• an article addressing how “the U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires to serve as director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”

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

• an article suggesting President Trump’s tariffs case “will shape US economic policy for years to come—and its effects will reach far beyond tariffs”;
• an article discussing the “legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act”;
• an article indicating the Federal Circuit “clarified several important principles governing patent claim construction” in a series of decisions issued between March and August; and
• an article arguing “[t]he Commerce Department is mulling a change to the 235-year-old patent system that would impair American start-ups.”

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

• an article suggesting “the tariff case the [Supreme Court] justices agreed to hear” will be “more significant” than any other “legal clashes in the next three-plus years of Donald Trump’s term in office”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he Trump administration must cross a minefield without a misstep in order to uphold its tariffs”;
• a blog post detailing how President Trump’s tariff case presents a critical test of presidential power and how “[t]he stakes in the litigation are enormous”; and
• an article discussing how President Trump’s tariff case “is not only the linchpin of the president’s economic agenda but also the trajectory of executive power . . . and now accelerating expansion.”

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

• an article reporting how “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative”;
• an article detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims”; and
• an article reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.”

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

• an article discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber”;
• an article noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal”;
• an article reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing”; and
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.”