FedCircuitBlog

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.

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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Also, since our last update, four new petitions have been filed in takings, patent, and pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a trademark case and a pro se patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 and its application of the Whistleblower Protection Act. 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 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.

Here is an update on recent Supreme Court activity in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The only case pending at the Supreme Court decided by the Federal Circuit is Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. Since our last update, thirty two amicus briefs have been filed in this case. The case is set to be argued on Wednesday. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition has been filed in a patent case, and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. 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 arguing how President Trump’s challengers “might be about to make” a mistake “by choosing a partisan liberal lawyer, rather than a conservative, to deliver oral arguments on Nov. 5”;
• an article reporting how “[t]hirty-one former federal judges urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject President Donald Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to impose sweeping, world-wide tariffs”;
• an article discussing how the manner in which “AI inventions are treated at the USPTO is one of many changes taking place under the [Trump] administration”; and
• an article highlighting some “noteworthy trends for practitioners and stakeholders alike to consider” given the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s updated guidance related to inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings.

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

• a piece suggesting “President Donald Trump’s strategy for defending his tariffs in court is to make the case about himself as much as possible — and dare the justices to defy him”;
• an article discussing how John Squires, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “brings a blend of technical fluency, institutional scale and market-hardened pragmatism to the USPTO at a key moment for innovation”;
• a blog post commenting on how closing the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eliminated “the ability to recruit new examiners from across the country” and threatened to “undo years of progress”; and
• a blog post suggesting a Federal Circuit decision, which “presents a pivotal dispute concerning the intersection of patent law and ‘after-arising technology,’” is a “significant patent ruling of 2025.”