FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in patent cases, raising questions related to marking, exceptional case status, and eligibility. The Federal Circuit also issued an invitation for a response to a petition in a patent case raising questions related to prior art and the Administrative Procedure Act. 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 National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett “predicted that the justices will rule in the White House’s favor” in President Trump’s tariffs cases;
• an article discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit will kick-start 2026 continuing to grapple with a suite of challenges seeking to block significant changes to patent validity review procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
• an article arguing “the Supreme Court should grant review in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Co.” to clarify the Loper Bright doctrine.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 65 cases. Of the 65 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. 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 amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about this case.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc opinion in a case addressing federal employment law. There also have been four new petitions for en banc rehearing asking questions related to contract interpretation, standing, prior art, and sanctions and fee awards. The Federal Circuit also denied three petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Micron Technology Inc. v. Longhorn IP, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the District of Idaho, which held that federal patent law does not preempt Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act and, as a result, imposed a bond of $8 million on Longhorn before the court would proceed with the case. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Schall, and Stoll, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without reaching the merits. This is our opinion summary.

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

• a blog post observing how “[t]he year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• an article examining how a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit expanded prosecution disclaimers to include examiner-defined species — independent and distinct inventions within a patent application — in restriction practice”; and
• an article discussing “whether importers that have already paid the tariffs . . . would be entitled to refunds” and “how might that refund process work” if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs.

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

• an article reporting how “Costco has sued the Trump administration for a refund of the tariffs it has paid on imported goods”;
• an article discussing how “[t]here are a number of alternative statutes that the administration could rely on to issue” tariffs “instead of IEEPA” if President Trump’s tariffs are struck down by the Supreme Court;
• a blog post arguing recent Federal Circuit decisions “establish that the ‘final and nonappealable’ language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of [inter partes review] institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges”; and
• a blog post recounting how the Supreme Court denied certiorari in “a case that asked the Justices to clarify U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent around using ‘after-arising technology’ to hold a patent invalid in the context of patent-infringement suits.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a case addressing jurisdiction, a veterans case, and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in the case addressing jurisdiction; a brief in opposition was filed in a trademark case; a reply brief was filed in a patent case; and two amicus briefs were filed in another veterans case. Finally, the Court denied three petitions, one in a patent case, one in a trademark case, and on in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re SAP America, Inc., a patent case. We have been following the case because it attracted two amicus briefs. The petition presented two questions related to alleged due process and separation of powers violations by the Patent and Trademark Office, focusing on the retroactive revocation of agency guidance related to discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review. Judge Linn authored the order denying the petition. Here is a summary of the order.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Motorola Solutions, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted five amicus briefs. In the petition, Motorola Solutions challenged the Patent and Trademark Office’s rescission of a memorandum governing discretionary denial of petitions for inter partes review. Motorola argued the rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as its due process rights. Judge Linn authored the order denying the petition. This is our summary of the order.