FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, two petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed with the Federal Circuit in patent cases, raising questions related to judicial estoppel, appellate procedure, and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a pro se case. 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 the “Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs that he pursued under a law meant for use in national emergencies”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s tariff decision undercuts President Trump’s “signature economic policy” and delivers Trump’s “biggest legal defeat since he returned to the White House”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court “ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats”; and
• an article identifying “six takeaways from the decision” by the Supreme Court.

This morning the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize tariffs imposed by President Trump early in his administration. The Court decided the case by a vote of six to three, but it issued splintering opinions totaling 170 pages explaining various approaches to deciding the case. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. In it, Chief Justice Roberts explains why the Court concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Other parts of the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts invoke the major questions doctrine as another basis to affirm the Federal Circuit, but those parts were joined only by Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. Beyond the opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, every other Justice except for Justices Sotomayor and Alito issued their own opinions:

• Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion explaining why he joined in full the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, paying particular attention to the major questions doctrine.
• Justice Barrett filed an opinion responding to criticism from Justice Gorsuch about her view of the major questions doctrine.
• Justice Kagan filed an opinion joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concluding that the Court need not address the major questions doctrine given the Court’s statutory interpretation.
• Justice Jackson filed an opinion invoking legislative history as another basis to support the Court’s statutory interpretation.
• Justice Thomas filed an opinion discussing his view that IEEPA is consistent with separation of powers.
• Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting from the holding of the Court. This was the primary dissent.

Here are introductions and relevant excerpts of the various opinions.

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

• a piece indicating that, “[f]or businesses awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariffs, the next three chances for a decision will be Feb. 20, Feb. 24 and Feb. 25”;
• an article suggesting that, “[e]ven as small businesses wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority, . . . uncertainty around import duties will continue”;
• an article identifying “a number of trends” related to petitions and decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Federal Circuit and correlating “those trends to concurrent developments in the biopharma industry and legal landscape”; and
• a blog post discussing “whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . or the Central Reexamination Unit . . . at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

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 set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising questions about unfair competition claims under the Lanham 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 reporting how “President Donald Trump . . . tapped one of his White House lawyers to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that could prove pivotal in deciding tariff refunds if the Supreme Court strikes down some of the president’s duties”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court put President Trump’s tariff case “on a fast track at the administration’s urging” but doesn’t “seem in a rush to rule on the president’s signature economic program”;
• an article observing how, in late 2025, “the USPTO announced the creation” of a working group related to standard essential patents in “the latest effort of the USPTO to strengthen the ability of patent holders . . . to enforce their patent rights, including through injunctive relief”; and
• an article describing how “Apple Inc. couldn’t convince the Federal Circuit to block the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from implementing changes that make it harder to challenge the validity of patents.”

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 three recent opinions, four recent orders, and one new case. 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 the timing of the Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariff case might be related to the idea “SCOTUS would presumably want to give guidance to lower courts on how they should rule on these suits”;
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit dissenting opinion that “offers an attack on how the Federal Circuit has been applying the ‘plainly dissimilar’ standard for design patent infringement”;
• an article indicating that, “[o]ver the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has treated artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions more favorably under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act than they have been in years”; and
• an article suggesting inter partes reviews “are essentially unavailable for the majority of patents now being asserted in litigation.”