FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three response briefs have been filed by parties opposing President Trump’s tariffs along with two amicus briefs in favor of the Federal Circuit’s judgment. Three new petitions have also been filed: one comes in a trademark case, another comes in a case addressing claims under the Quiet Title Act, and the third comes in a military disability retirement benefits case. Two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same patent case, along with two amicus briefs favoring review. Two reply briefs were filed in another patent case. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected three petitions, one in a patent 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 reporting how “President Donald Trump said he might go to the Supreme Court to personally watch oral arguments on whether the bulk of his tariffs pass legal muster, in what would be a highly unusual spectacle”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied a move from a Montana lawmaker seeking to intervene as the high court takes up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff authority”;
• an article explaining how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed rules . . . that would prevent inter partes reviews challenging patents from being instituted in many scenarios”; and
• an article highlighting how “John Squires, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced . . . [that] he will reclaim authority over decisions on whether to allow challenges of approved patent applications under inter partes and post-grant reviews.”

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

• an article predicting “[w]hy the Supreme Court may choose to uphold Trump’s tariffs: ‘It would be incredibly disruptive to unscramble those eggs’”;
• an article indicating the “U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear new patent cases for nearly three years has frustrated parties that suffer appellate losses and left the Federal Circuit as the final arbiter over legal disputes that divide the patent bar”;
• a blog post reporting how a “number of amici weighed in . . .  to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether, “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act”; and
• an article discussing how a “recent U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling — now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — threatens to impose retroactive duties on importers of solar cells and modules.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in the case addressing President Trump’s tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, since our last update a petition was filed in a government contract case, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, five amicus briefs were filed in a patent case, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and a petition in a pro se case was denied. 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 Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power’”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy”;
• a blog post discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development”; and
• an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.”

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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in President Trump’s case addressing his tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a trademark case, a new amicus brief was filed in a patent case, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed in pro se cases, and thirteen petitions were denied by the Supreme Court in cases raising questions related to patent law, the Lanham Act, military disability retirement benefits, and due process. 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 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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. With respect to petitions, four new petitions have been filed. Two petitions present questions related to Federal Circuit Rule 36, while two were filed in pro se cases. In addition, three new briefs in opposition and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.