FedCircuitBlog

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.

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 were filed, one raising questions related to claim construction and Rule 36 summary affirmances and one raising questions related to awards of attorneys’ fees and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases, one raising a question related to claim construction and one raising questions related to Rule 36 summary affirmances. 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 Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power’”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy”;
• a blog post discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development”; and
• an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.”

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.