FedCircuitBlog

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 petitions, a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and five pro se cases; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a veterans case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in ten 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, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, raising a question related to venue for patent infringement claims; the Federal Circuit also invited a response to this petition; and another response was filed in another 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 suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases”;
• an article analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce”;
• an article reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension”; and
• a blog post commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a case we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Chen heard the oral argument. 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, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, there has been a lot of activity:

• eight new petitions were filed, one in a patent case and seven in pro se cases;
• nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases, a veterans case, an MSPB case, a government contracts case, and pro se cases;
• fourt briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and government contracts case;
• three reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in the same Quiet Title Act case, a trademark case, and the same government contracts case;
• sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases;
• supplemental briefs were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and
• the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases, a takings case, a case addressing jurisdiction and a pro se 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, 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.