Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a report highlighting that the Federal Circuit “is writing more opinions . . . several years after it faced criticism from a group of patent lawyers and academics”;
- an article noting how the Federal Circuit “handed SpaceTime3D, Inc. mixed results in two nonprecedential decisions involving graphical user interface patents challenged by Apple and Google”; and
- a piece explaining how “two dozen states pushed the Federal Circuit . . . to revive their specific claims against now-expired temporary tariffs while simultaneously pushing the panel to otherwise back the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling that the tariffs were illegal.”
Michael Shapiro filed a report with Bloomberg Law highlighting that the Federal Circuit is “writing more opinions — specifically, more nonprecedential opinions — several years after it faced criticism from a group of patent lawyers and academics over the frequency with which it disposed of cases using judgments saying just ‘affirmed.'” He points to a Bloomberg Law analysis showing that the court’s 94 Rule 36 judgments in 2025 marked “the first time that number dipped below 100 since 2007.”
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog noting how the Federal Circuit “handed SpaceTime3D, Inc. mixed results in two nonprecedential decisions involving graphical user interface patents challenged by Apple and Google.” McDermott highlighted how the court explained a “petitioner must have a reasonable opportunity to respond to a claim construction first proposed after institution, but ‘a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation.'” For more, see the opinions in Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. and SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Jack McLoone published a piece with Law360 explaining how “[t]wo dozen states pushed the Federal Circuit . . . to revive their specific claims against now-expired temporary tariffs while simultaneously pushing the panel to otherwise back the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling that the tariffs were illegal.” According to McLoone, the states argued that “predictable economic harms supported by unrebutted economic analysis easily satisfy Article III’s personal-stake requirement for each state.”