FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent Supreme Court activity in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The only case pending at the Supreme Court decided by the Federal Circuit is Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. Since our last update, thirty two amicus briefs have been filed in this case. The case is set to be argued on Wednesday. Regarding pending petitions, one new petition has been filed in a patent case, and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

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

• an article arguing how President Trump’s challengers “might be about to make” a mistake “by choosing a partisan liberal lawyer, rather than a conservative, to deliver oral arguments on Nov. 5”;
• an article reporting how “[t]hirty-one former federal judges urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject President Donald Trump’s attempts to use emergency powers to impose sweeping, world-wide tariffs”;
• an article discussing how the manner in which “AI inventions are treated at the USPTO is one of many changes taking place under the [Trump] administration”; and
• an article highlighting some “noteworthy trends for practitioners and stakeholders alike to consider” given the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s updated guidance related to inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings.

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

• a piece suggesting “President Donald Trump’s strategy for defending his tariffs in court is to make the case about himself as much as possible — and dare the justices to defy him”;
• an article discussing how John Squires, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “brings a blend of technical fluency, institutional scale and market-hardened pragmatism to the USPTO at a key moment for innovation”;
• a blog post commenting on how closing the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eliminated “the ability to recruit new examiners from across the country” and threatened to “undo years of progress”; and
• a blog post suggesting a Federal Circuit decision, which “presents a pivotal dispute concerning the intersection of patent law and ‘after-arising technology,’” is a “significant patent ruling of 2025.”

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In the case, Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a panel consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen heard the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s challenge to a district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three response briefs have been filed by parties opposing President Trump’s tariffs along with two amicus briefs in favor of the Federal Circuit’s judgment. Three new petitions have also been filed: one comes in a trademark case, another comes in a case addressing claims under the Quiet Title Act, and the third comes in a military disability retirement benefits case. Two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same patent case, along with two amicus briefs favoring review. Two reply briefs were filed in another patent case. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected three petitions, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction and preambles; one new response has been filed to a petition that raises a question related to the presumption of validity and the written description requirement; and three petitions for en banc rehearing have been denied in cases raising questions related to ineligibility, claim construction, and prosecution history estoppel. Here are the details.

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

• an article reporting how “President Donald Trump said he might go to the Supreme Court to personally watch oral arguments on whether the bulk of his tariffs pass legal muster, in what would be a highly unusual spectacle”;
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied a move from a Montana lawmaker seeking to intervene as the high court takes up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariff authority”;
• an article explaining how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed rules . . . that would prevent inter partes reviews challenging patents from being instituted in many scenarios”; and
• an article highlighting how “John Squires, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced . . . [that] he will reclaim authority over decisions on whether to allow challenges of approved patent applications under inter partes and post-grant reviews.”

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

• an article predicting “[w]hy the Supreme Court may choose to uphold Trump’s tariffs: ‘It would be incredibly disruptive to unscramble those eggs’”;
• an article indicating the “U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear new patent cases for nearly three years has frustrated parties that suffer appellate losses and left the Federal Circuit as the final arbiter over legal disputes that divide the patent bar”;
• a blog post reporting how a “number of amici weighed in . . .  to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition asking the Justices to consider whether, “in a patent-infringement suit, a court may consider after-arising technology to hold that the patent is invalid under § 112(a) of the Patent Act”; and
• an article discussing how a “recent U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling — now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — threatens to impose retroactive duties on importers of solar cells and modules.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in the case addressing President Trump’s tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, since our last update a petition was filed in a government contract case, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, five amicus briefs were filed in a patent case, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and a petition in a pro se case was denied. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.