Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article arguing that, “[a]s state ‘anti-troll’ statutes become more commonly used in patent disputes, courts need a jurisdictional rule that is clear and respects the difference between federal patent cases and state-law cases that simply have patents in them”;
- a blog post covering how a recent Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the court’s jurisdiction “may run well beyond its modest-looking facts”;
- a blog post reporting how the “full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026’ (NO FAKES Act)”; and
- an article highlighting how in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit to be argued this fall the Supreme Court “will shed new light and legalities on whether military veterans can bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . when filing legal challenges for benefits.”
Paul Gugliuzza wrote an article for Bloomberg arguing that, “[a]s state ‘anti-troll’ statutes become more commonly used in patent disputes, courts need a jurisdictional rule that is clear and respects the difference between federal patent cases and state-law cases that simply have patents in them.” Gugliuzza contends “[a]rising-under jurisdiction over a state-law claim should exist only when the case presents a genuine dispute about what patent law means, or about the validity or interpretation of the patent statute.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO covering how a recent Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the court’s jurisdiction “may run well beyond its modest-looking facts.” Crouch explains how, “[a]lthough Insulet’s original complaint included a patent infringement claim, Insulet voluntarily dismissed that claim without prejudice and amended the complaint to remove it.” Crouch suggests this is “a step that ordinarily moves the appeal to the regional circuit.” He notes, however, that the “Federal Circuit kept the case anyway.” For more information, check out the opinion in late May in Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co.
Eileen McDermott penned a blog post for IP Watchdog reporting how the “full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026’ (NO FAKES Act).” McDermott discussed how the Act “would create a federal IP right to an individual’s voice and likeness,” “grant the ‘right to authorize the use of the voice or visual likeness of the individual’ in digital replicas or other product or service, and would not be assignable during the life of the right holder but is licensable.”
Nick Mordowanec penned an article for Military.com highlighting how in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit to be argued this fall the Supreme Court “will shed new light and legalities on whether military veterans can bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . when filing legal challenges for benefits.” Mordowanec suggests that “at the core of the Supreme Court’s expected deliberation will be the Veteran’s Judicial Review Act, a 1988 law that instituted a specific channel for contesting individual VA benefit decisions—from a regional office, to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and finally” to the Federal Circuit.