FedCircuitBlog

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in one of the court’s two en banc cases. As for pending petitions for en banc rehearing, an amicus brief was filed in support of a petition raising a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements, and the court denied a pro se litigant’s petition. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece covering how two senators recently “introduced the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act of 2025, which would restore patent owners’ right to the rebuttable presumption that a court will issue an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement”;
• a blog post discussing how, in “a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s denial of a former patent examiner’s application to register as a patent practitioner”;
• a report explaining how recently “Halo Electronics’ nearly two-decades-old dispute with a rival completed its fifth trip to the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article reporting how the Trump administration is going to “rescind the Biden Justice Department’s (DOJ) plan to bail out pharmaceutical giant Moderna to the tune of up to $3 billion for alleged patent infringement.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege”;
• a report covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases”; and
• a report covering how a “US Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in three patent cases and three pro se cases. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond in one of those patent cases and an amicus brief in another patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions 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. As for granted petitions, a reply brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. As for pending petitions, a pro se litigant filed a petition, a response was filed to a petition presenting a question related to waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance, and the court denied a petition presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the details.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
• a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
• a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
• an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to enablement of prior art. The Court also received a brief in opposition in a patent case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a reply in support of a petition in a trade case, and an amicus brief in another patent case addressing alleged improper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. Here are the details.