Featured / Panel Activity
on

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight one recent opinion, two recent orders, and five new cases. Here are the details.

Opinions and Orders

Since our last update, a panel of the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a patent case that attracted amicus briefs. Two other panels also released two orders in cases that attracted amicus briefs.

Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn IP, LLC

We have been following this patent case because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the District of Idaho, which held that federal patent law does not preempt Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act and, as a result, imposed a bond of $8 million on Longhorn before the court would proceed with the case. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits. See our opinion summary for more information.

In re Motorola Solutions, Inc.

In this patent case, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition attracted five amicus briefs. In it, Motorola Solutions challenged the Patent and Trademark Office’s rescission of a memorandum governing discretionary denial of petitions for inter partes review. Motorola argued the rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as its due process rights. Judge Linn authored the order denying the petition. See our order summary for more information.

In re SAP America, Inc.

The Federal Circuit also issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re SAP America, Inc., another patent case that attracted two amicus briefs. The petition, like the one in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., presented two questions related to alleged due process and separation of powers violations by the Patent and Trademark Office based on a retroactive revocation of agency guidance related to discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review. Judge Linn authored the order denying the petition. See our order summary for more information.

New Cases

Since our last update, five cases attracted amicus briefs.

In re Maplebear Inc.

In this case, Maplebear, doing business as Instacart, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition presenting three questions:

  • 1. “Whether the USPTO violated the APA and AIA by imposing limitations on IPR institution without notice-and-comment rulemaking, including:”
  • a. “Applying the new ‘settled expectations’ rule without authority or reasoned decision making; and”
  • b. “Applying the new ‘road mapping’ rule without authority or reasoned decision making;”
  • 2. “Whether the USPTO violated due process by unlawfully applying a new bar to IPR2025-00958; and”
  • 3. “Whether the USPTO exceeded its authority—in violation of the APA and the Constitution’s separation of powers—by inventing IPR institution criteria untethered to the AIA.”

One amicus brief was filed in support of the petitioner and a grant of mandamus:

In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

In this case, Comcast filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The petition presents one question:

  • “Whether a defendant’s alleged performance of a single step of a claimed multi-step method in a judicial district is insufficient to establish that ‘the defendant has committed acts of infringement’ in the district for purposes of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).”

One amicus brief was filed in support of the petitioners:

Cellulose Material Solutions, LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc.

In this case, Cellulose filed an appeal brief presenting the following question:

  • “[D]id the district court err in granting summary judgment to Thermal Shipping on the invalidity issue?”

One amicus brief was filed in support of the appellant and reversal:

In re SanDisk Technologies, Inc.

In this case, Sandisk filed a petition for a writ of mandamus presenting the following questions:

  1. “Did the USPTO violate due process by applying its ‘settled expectations’ rule post-hoc to pre-filed petitions?”
  2. “Did the USPTO violate the APA by applying its ‘settled expectations’ rule post-hoc, without authority and without considering relevant concerns?”
  3. “Did the USPTO violate the APA and AIA by skipping notice-andcomment procedures for its ‘settled expectations’ rule—a new IPR limit determining stakeholder rights?”
  4. “Did the USPTO exceed its authority—violating the APA and the Constitution’s separation of powers—by inventing an extra-statutory ‘settled expectations’ rule for ‘old’ patents?”

Five amicus briefs were filed. Four support the petitioners:

One supports denial of mandamus, but urges the court to treat the petition as a notice of appeal and to reverse on the merits:

In re Intel Corp.

In In re Intel Corporation, Intel filed a petition for a writ of mandamus presenting four questions:

  1. “Did the USPTO violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, the America Invents Act (‘AIA’), and the APA by denying institution based solely on a preference for ex parte reexamination?”
  2. “Did the USPTO exceed its authority and violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by applying a novel rationale retroactively?”
  3. “Is the USPTO’s basis for denying IPR here arbitrary and irrational, contrary to the Fifth Amendment and the APA?”
  4. “Did the USPTO violate the Fifth Amendment and the APA by disregarding its own precedent?”

One amicus breif was filed in support of the petitioners and a grant of mandamus: