Update on Important Panel Activity

By David Taylor on October 6, 2026

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 four opinions: one in a patent case addressing obviousness, one in a case addressing veterans law, and two addressing bilateral tax treaties. We also identify two new patent cases, both raising questions of claim construction. We also highlight one response brief in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief; two reply briefs in cases that raise questions related to copyright law and inter partes review proceedings; and five new amicus briefs in a patent case that raises questions related to infringement and injunctive relief. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to takings under state law and inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Opinions

Since our last update, a Federal Circuit panel has issued an opinion in one patent case that attracted an amicus brief.

Christensen v. United States

Last month we reported how the court issued its opinion in this tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. Since our last update, we’ve released our opinion summary.

Bruyea v. United States

Last month we reported how the court issued its opinion in this tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the government appealed a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on its view that bilateral tax treaties relieve U.S. taxpayers from double taxation with respect to net investment income tax. Since our last update, we’ve released our opinion summary.

In re Satius Holding, Inc.

In this case, Satius Holding, Inc. appealed decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting a claim on obviousness grounds in an ex parte reexamination and denying their request for rehearing. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Lourie and Hughes, the panel dismissed the appeal as moot. We will post an opinion summary soon.

Loomis v. Collins

We have been tracking this pro se veterans case because the court appointed counsel as amicus curiae. In this case, Loomis appealed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the panel affirmed the judgement. We will post an opinion summary soon.

New Cases

Since our last update, cases we’ve identified that include amicus briefs include the following two related cases set for oral argument in November.

In re Blaze Mobile, Inc.

This case presents the following questions:

“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to ‘user input login information including an identification code associated with the user from the non-browser based application’ and ‘authenticating, at the remote management server, a user associated with the user input login information.’”
“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to the ‘identification of one or more products selected from the list of products’ and the ‘transaction purchase request.’”
“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to the ‘remote management server’ and the ‘transaction server.’”
“Whether the PTAB erred in ruling that independent claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’007 patent would have been obvious over Khedouri and Goldthwaite.”
“Whether the PTAB erred in ruling that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Khedouri’s network and Goldthwaite’s financial institution server when such a combination would render Khedouri’s network unsuitable for its intended purpose.”

In re Blaze Mobile, Inc.

This case presents the following questions:

“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to ‘user input login information including an identification code associated with the user from the non-browser based application’ and ‘information authenticating the user associated with the user input login information.’”
“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitation ‘identification code associated with the user’ to be the same as the claim limitation ‘personal identification number (PIN).’”
“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to the ‘identification of one or more products selected from the list of products’ and the ‘transaction purchase request.’”
“Whether the U.S. PTO erred in construing the claim limitations relating to the ‘remote management server’ and the ‘transaction server.’”
“Whether the PTAB erred in ruling that independent claims 1 and 13 of the ’259 patent would have been obvious over Khedouri, Goldthwaite, Coward, Dua and Harrison.”
“Whether the PTAB erred in ruling that independent claim 7 of the ’259 patent would have been obvious over Khedouri, Goldthwaite, Coward, and Harrison.”
“Whether the PTAB erred in ruling that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Khedouri’s network and Goldthwaite’s financial institution server when such a combination would render Khedouri’s network unsuitable for its intended purpose.”

Response Briefs

Since our last update, one response brief was filed in a case that attracted an amicus brief.

Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

As a reminder, Collision Communications’ opening brief in this case presented the following question:

“Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Collision a permanent injunction to prohibit Samsung from continuing to infringe.”

Now, in its response brief, Samsung presents their following counterstatement of the issues:

“Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a permanent injunction based on its factual findings that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer specific future harm in the absence of an injunction or that an injunction would not disserve the public interest.”; and
“Whether the judgment should be affirmed on one of the following alternative grounds:”
1. “Under this Court’s precedent, three considerations, alone or in combination, demonstrate that injunctive relief is not appropriate here: (i) merely failing to persuade a party to enter into a joint-development agreement does not amount to a loss in a “design-win competition”; (ii) an injunction against the vast majority of a company’s products imposes a hardship on the company and harms the public interest; and (iii) a decade-long delay in seeking injunctive relief strongly disfavors a permanent injunction.”
2. “The record lacks substantial evidence of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,593,492.”

Samsung notes that “[i]t is blackletter law that to obtain an injunction, a plaintiff must establish that it ‘would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief.'” Because “Collision did not even attempt to make that showing here,” Samsung asserts “[t]he district court . . . did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief.”

Reply Briefs

Since our last update, two reply briefs were filed in cases attracting amicus briefs.

Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.

As a reminder, Splunk’s opening brief in this case presented the following questions:

“Whether the district court erred in holding that Cribl’s repeated, ongoing downloading, copying, and executing of the entire copyrighted Splunk Enterprise software to test and troubleshoot Cribl Stream were ‘fair uses’ under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, where these uses were not transformative, were overwhelmingly commercial, and caused market harm to Splunk.”
“Whether the district court erred in interpreting the SGT and TAP agreements.”
“Whether remand is warranted to revise the permanent injunction where the district court’s erroneous rulings on fair use and on contract interpretation tainted its injunction analysis.”
“Whether the district court erred in holding at the pleadings stage that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,443 and 10,805,438 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

In its principle and response brief, Cribl Inc. presented the following questions in its cross appeal:

“Whether the district court committed reversible error in finding that any unlicensed, incidental copying of Splunk’s copyrighted object code arising from Cribl’s downloading and execution of Splunk Enterprise for purposes of testing and troubleshooting to maintain interoperability with Cribl Stream was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.”
“Whether the district court correctly interpreted provisions of the parties’ agreements to allow for the fair use of Splunk Enterprise software, including through reverse-engineering, testing, and troubleshooting.”
“Whether there is any basis to remand for a new trial or revisit the scope of the injunction.”
“Whether the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,443 and 10,805,438 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“Only to the extent this Court disturbs any copyright aspect of the judgment or injunction below, whether the district court erred in denying Cribl’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to willful copyright infringement.”

In its response and reply brief, Splunk claimed it “is entitled to the protections of the Copyright Act and the Patent Act to protect the substantial investments it made in its innovative Enterprise software and to prevent wholesale copying by competitor Cribl,” and that [t]he district court eviscerated those protections.”

Now, in its reply brief, Cribl argues that Splunk “failed to present any evidence at all with respect to how long any portion of Splunk Enterprise code persists in RAM when it is executed,” and that “[a] verdict cannot be sustained when the prevailing party submitted literally no evidence to support necessary findings.” Cribl contends the relevant standard is not whether software persisted long enough to be perceived by a human, but rather whether it persisted for “more than a transitory period,” which caselaw sets at “several minutes.” As to willfulness, Cribl notes Splunk’s state-of-mind evidence related “solely to Cribl’s reverse-engineering activities, not its marketing or testing and troubleshooting activities,” and argues that a verdict “cannot be affirmed based on a theory that was not before the jury.”

Google Inc. v. Cellular South, Inc.

As a reminder, Google’s opening brief in this case presented the following questions:

“Whether this Court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a decision of the PTO denying institution of an inter partes review where the appeal raises a colorable constitutional claim that the institution process violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.”
“Whether the PTO’s decision to deny institution of inter partes reviews for the ’954 and ’972 patents solely because both patents are over six years old violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.”

In its response brief, Cellular South highlighted that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) “provides in unambiguous terms that the ‘determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable,'” and that Google “has failed to raise a colorable constitutional argument and has failed to demonstrate that the application of the settled expectations rule in this case violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.”

Now, in its reply brief, Google argues that Appellees’ reading of § 314(d) would allow the PTO to “decline to institute an inter partes review . . . based on a protected characteristic . . . or based on a wholly arbitrary factor . . . and nevertheless require the petitioner to proceed under the demanding mandamus standard,” which “cannot be right.” Google contends that § 314(d) “does not purport to—and does not—render colorable constitutional claims unreviewable by this Court.” On the “settled expectations” rule, Google asserts that Cellular South’s proposed justifications are “irrelevant” because “the PTO’s only proffered justification . . . is the age of the challenged patents,” a distinction that “lacks a rational basis.”

Amicus Briefs

Since our last update, five additional amicus briefs were filed in Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

As discussed above, the opening brief in this case presented the following question:

“Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Collision a permanent injunction to prohibit Samsung from continuing to infringe.”

The following additional amicus briefs have now been filed:

This case has now received a total of three amicus briefs in support of Collision Communications, Inc. and five amicus briefs in support of Samsung Electronics Co.

Oral Arguments

Since our last update, two cases that have attracted amicus briefs have been argued.

Barron v. United States

As a reminder, in this case Barron appeals the dismissal of her takings claim by the Court of Federal Claims. This appeal presents questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. We have posted an argument recap.

Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.

As a reminder, in this case Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which resulted in the invalidation of a claim of a Netlist patent. We have posted an argument recap.