FedCircuitBlog

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.”

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.