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 two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case, a case addressing sanctions, and a pro se case. The Supreme Court also denied petitions in a veterans case, a case addressing the Quiet Title Act, and four 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 has been filed, raising a question related to the court’s ability to decide the adequacy of written description without deferring to a jury’s verdict; one new amicus brief was filed in support of a petition that raised a question related to venue; and, finally, the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing one in a pro se case and the other that raised questions related to what qualifies as 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 highlighting White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment that “the White House has a ‘backup plan that’s really solid,’ . . . saying Trump would immediately impose tariffs of 10% ‘to make up most of the room’ from the IEEPA tariffs being struck down”;
• a blog post discussing how a “group of conservative leaders . . . sent a letter” to the Trump Administration “strongly supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . issued in October”; and
• an article examining how AI-assisted inventions, particularly in biologics innovation, “raise fundamental questions about how those inventions are disclosed and claimed in patent applications”;
• an article reporting how “USAA wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling” by the Federal Circuit “that set aside two jury awards totaling almost $223 million in patent-infringement cases.”

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

• an article reporting how the Supreme Court is “set to start a four-week recess . . . without having ruled on pending challenges to most of the duties Trump has imposed over the last year”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a “skinny labels” patent fight that could have “broad consequences for generic drug makers”; and
• a blog post predicting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “is likely to undergo a dramatic transformation in 2026 based upon the convergence of two parallel developments.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent Infringement. A new petition was filed in a patent case addressing eligibility. Waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same case addressing eligibility and another patent case addressing appellate procedure. And, finally, an amicus brief was filed in veterans disability benefits 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, three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed. These petitions raise questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for en banc rehearing that raised a question related to sanctions. 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 predicting the “International Trade Commission will have an active 2026 managing its docket of patent cases due to expanded access for patent owners and operational delays”;
• a blog post discussing how former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu testified at the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee hearing and “spoke to several ways that our nation’s adversaries and trading partners alike are weakening American IP rights and how those issues should be addressed by U.S. policymakers”;
• an article reporting how “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires has denied 47 requests for America Invents Act patent reviews and granted eight other petitions, continuing his practice of spurning most patent challenges that reach his desk since he took over the handling of institution decisions”; and
• an article examining “a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that [inter partes review] estoppel does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.”

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc, a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review the following questions:

1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

Here is more information about the case.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight one recent opinion, two recent orders, and five new cases. 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 “[t]he longer the Supreme Court delays its tariff decision, the better it is for President Trump”;
• an article highlighting how “[t]he year 2025 was eventful for patent attorneys”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court left “intact a line of decisions that treat foreign-language marks through the lens of direct translation”; and
• a blog post analyzing “seven patent issues from 2025 that deserve ongoing consideration.”