FedCircuitBlog

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 Federal Circuit decision “stressed that the inventorship listed on a patent demands perfection”;
• a blog post noting “a final rule in the Federal Register” explains that the USPTO “is ‘revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents’”;
• an article discussing how the “Department of Justice has told the Federal Circuit that multibillion-dollar patent infringement litigation should be directed at the government, instead of Moderna”; and
• an article arguing “[m]any news outlets have struggled to accurately characterise the nature of the proceedings surrounding [Judge] Newman, leading to widespread misunderstanding among readers and legal observers alike.”

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ollnova Technologies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the patent owner, Ollnova, appeals a district court’s denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer, Ecobee, cross-appeals the district court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel affirmed-in-part, dismissed-in-part, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

One case being argued at the Federal Circuit in July attracted an amicus brief. This case is In re Satius Holding, Inc., a patent case. In it, Satius appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. In the appeal, Satius presents questions related to claim construction and prosecution history disclaimer. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, one new petition was filed in a pro se case; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Court denied four petitions in patent, trademark, and two more pro se cases. Here are the details.

Earlier this month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Arendi S.A.R.L. appealed a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Linn and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one petition for initial en banc hearing was granted in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board raising questions related to the President’s Article II removal power. Three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to burden of proving unpatentability in inter partes review proceedings, obviousness, enablement, and written description. One new response brief was filed in a case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 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 arguing that, “[a]s state ‘anti-troll’ statutes become more commonly used in patent disputes, courts need a jurisdictional rule that is clear and respects the difference between federal patent cases and state-law cases that simply have patents in them”;
• a blog post covering how a recent Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the court’s jurisdiction “may run well beyond its modest-looking facts”;
• a blog post reporting how the “full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026’ (NO FAKES Act)”; and
• an article highlighting how in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit to be argued this fall the Supreme Court “will shed new light and legalities on whether military veterans can bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . when filing legal challenges for benefits.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, A.L.M. Holding appealed a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel reversed and remanded. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

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

• an article discussing how the “Federal Circuit on Wednesday agreed to conduct en banc review over the firing of two immigration judges”;
•  an article similarly outlining how the Federal Circuit “granted two former Justice Department employees’ request to expedite the appeal of their 2025 firings”;
• a blog post examining how, “in response to the May 12 opposition brief of . . . Chief Judge Kimberly Moore,” the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for certiorari”; and
• an article also discussing how the Supreme Court “declined . . . to hear a bid by the nation’s oldest federal judge, 98-year-old Pauline Newman, to overturn her suspension from duties.”

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, LG Electronics appealed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment of eligibility and denied judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Lourie and Oetken, a district judge from New York sitting by designation, the panel vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.