FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article how the Federal Circuit recently “denied [a] bid for a full court review of a panel decision that reinstated a $177 million jury verdict” for patent infringement, “while one dissenting judge said the panel’s holding ‘creates confusion’ over enablement standards for patent method claims”;
• a blog post reporting how Crocs has asked the Supreme Court to decide “whether an agency disposition is final as to some issues, thus triggering deadlines for judicial review, while other issues decided in the same disposition remain subject to further executive or administrative review”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims [a] wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous”; and
• an article highlighting how a “Wisconsin congressman unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at modernizing the law governing misconduct investigations for federal judges and limit indefinite suspensions of jurists which judicial advocates say amount to ‘stealth impeachments.’”

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 11 panels to consider 66 cases. Of the 66 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 42. Notably, as we have reported, the Federal Circuit will hold panel hearings both in Chicago as well as Washington DC. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced Raymond C. Clevenger III’s retirement from the Federal Circuit. As today’s announcement notes, Judge Clevenger served on the bench of the Federal Circuit for over 36 years, sitting on approximately 800 panels and authoring more than 1,200 opinions for the Court. While quite less important, personally I will never forget helping him carry a freshly-cut Christmas tree from his car in the basement of the courthouse to his chambers (somehow fitting the tree in the elevator), our lively debate about whether Kansas is a Plain State or part of the Midwest, and his uncanny ability to elicit admissions at oral argument. But, most of all and most importantly, I will remember his kindness and graciousness. On behalf of all the law clerks who ever interacted with him, as well as all the lawyers who ever pleaded a case he handled, we wish him great happiness in his retirement. Here is the full text of the court’s announcement.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a case raising a question related to appellate procedure and a pro se case; four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in four pro se cases; two briefs in opposition were filed in patent cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one reply brief in support of a petition was filed in another patent case raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings; one supplemental brief was filed in a pro se case; and one amicus brief was filed in another patent case raising questions related to eligibility. Here are the details.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit announced the schedule for its October 2026 session in Chicago. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion “affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds”;
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board was right to fully invalidate a speech recognition patent that Apple stands accused of infringing”;
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal because “the 30-day deadline of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) for filing a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ with no equitable exceptions”; and
• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal” of a Presidential Innovation Fellow’s “whistleblower appeal . . . , finding he had made sufficient allegations of gross mismanagement to establish jurisdiction.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a case raising questions about claim construction. The court also denied three petitions in cases that raised questions about inter partes review petitions, claim construction, and eligibility. 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 explaining how the Federal Circuit held that claims in three patents covering profitability-calculation methods are ineligible;
• an article reporting how USPTO Director John Squires asked the Federal Circuit to remand tech companies’ appeal of a $253 million patent judgment back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article highlighting how Senators Ashley Moody and Chris Coons introduced a bill, the Better Bench Act, that would let judges on the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims live anywhere in the United States instead of within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, five new petitions were filed in three patent cases, a case presenting questions related to copyright and government contract law, and a pro se case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a government contract case; and six amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one petition for rehearing en banc was denied in a patent case raising questions about the written description requirement and appellate procedure. Here are the details.