FedCircuitBlog

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.

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’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities”;
• a blog post discussing “whether amicus briefs matter” in President Trump’s tariff case;
• an article highlighting how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley recently stated “that they believe legislation is the best path to getting more clarity on which inventions are eligible for patents”; and
• a blog post noting the Federal Circuit recently “denied three mandamus petitions asking the court to step in and curb the recently-implemented practice by which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office . . . Director decides whether to institute inter partes review . . . proceedings.”

Earlier this month, the Court heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP, LLC, raises questions relating to Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Katana, the patent owner, sued Micron for infringement in federal district court. Longhorn, its licensing affiliate, was then sued by Micron in Idaho state court under the Act. Longhorn and Katana now appeal the district court’s order requiring an $8 million bond as a precondition to Katana pursuing its patent infringement claims. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article suggesting that, in deciding President Trump’s tariff case, “Chief Justice John Roberts faces a defining challenge as he enters his third decade leading the Supreme Court”;
• an article considering “[w]hat alternatives” the Trump Administration might “pursue if the court strikes down its use of IEEPA”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have provided “some key decisions and guidance” as companies “encounter opportunities to secure patents on their advances” when they use artificial intelligence.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, we posted a recap of the oral argument in President Trump’s case pending at the Court. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a pro se case; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; an amicus brief was filed in a trademark case; and the Court denied four petitions raising questions in two patent cases and two 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, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed, raising questions related to claim construction, patent eligibility, and appellate procedure. The court also denied four petitions for en banc rehearing. Those petitions raised questions related to the presumption of validity and the written description requirement, Rule 36, attorneys’ fees, and obviousness, and claim construction. Here are the details.