FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting “tips and stories during a day with the judges” at this year’s Federal Circuit Judicial Conference;
• an article criticizing the Federal Circuit’s recently released video as a “theme song” that is both “embarrassing and damning”;
• an article noting how “District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas [announced he] would leave the Western Texas bench by the end of this August”; and
• a blog post arguing that “[t]he IPR system, at least in its original form as a cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, is functionally suspended.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a trade secret case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. In this case, the majority found the statute of limitations expired. Notably, Judge Prost dissented, taking the position that the panel should not have reversed the jury’s conclusion “that none of the misappropriated trade secrets were time-barred.” The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, we have posted our argument recap. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; four briefs in opposition were filed; two reply briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied a petition. Here are the details.

This afternoon the Federal Circuit announced that Judge Bryson received the 2026 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award for the Federal Circuit. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion addressing a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. That’s all folks. Here is the opinion’s introduction.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed. One responds to a petition raising questions related to infringement and claim construction in design patent cases. The other responds to a petition raising a question related to admissibility of expert testimony. Two new amicus briefs were also filed supporting a petition raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Finally, the court denied two petitions in cases raising questions related to obviousness, apportionment, and eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Utah. The nonprecedential order remands a case to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the order.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Both nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Two of the orders deny petitions, one grants summary affirmance, one transfers an appeal, and one dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first three orders along with links to the transfer and dismissal.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following two questions:

1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released five nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware, one comes in government takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.