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 the “Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s tariff decision undercuts President Trump’s “signature economic policy” and delivers Trump’s “biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court “ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats”; and
• an article identifying “six takeaways from the decision” by the Supreme Court.

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

• a piece indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25”;
• an article suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue”;
• an article identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape”; and
• a blog post discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

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 set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. 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 reporting how “President Donald Trump . . . tapped one of his White House lawyers to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that could prove pivotal in deciding tariff refunds if the Supreme Court strikes down some of the president’s duties”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court put President Trump’s tariff case “on a fast track at the administration’s urging” but doesn’t “seem in a rush to rule on the president’s signature economic program”;
• an article observing how, in late 2025, “the USPTO announced the creation” of a working group related to standard essential patents in “the latest effort of the USPTO to strengthen the ability of patent holders . . . to enforce their patent rights, including through injunctive relief”; and
• an article describing how “Apple Inc. couldn’t convince the Federal Circuit to block the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from implementing changes that make it harder to challenge the validity of patents.”

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

• an article suggesting the timing of the Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariff case might be related to the idea “SCOTUS would presumably want to give guidance to lower courts on how they should rule on these suits”;
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit dissenting opinion that “offers an attack on how the Federal Circuit has been applying the ‘plainly dissimilar’ standard for design patent infringement”;
• an article indicating that, “[o]ver the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has treated artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions more favorably under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act than they have been in years”; and
• an article suggesting inter partes reviews “are essentially unavailable for the majority of patents now being asserted in litigation.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, a new petition was filed in a pro se case and two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two other 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 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.”