FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.”

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 five amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in a patent case were filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a trade case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in a patent case was filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a takings case and a pro se 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, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility. One new response was filed in response to a petition raising a question related to unfair competition claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing that raised questions related to the written description requirement and venue, respectively. Here are the details.

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

• a commentary arguing the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting President Trump’s tariffs “may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century”;
• an article arguing against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s suggestion that “refunds could take years, entangled in further litigation and administrative delay” after the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s tariffs;
• a blog post commenting on how, “[i]n a series of nonprecedential orders issued between February 24 and 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected every theory that petitioners offered for why” the Patent and Trademark Office’s “discretionary denial of inter partes review should be subject to judicial oversight”; and
• an article highlighting how the U.S. government and other amici “have warned the U.S. Supreme Court” that the Federal Circuit’s decision “that allowed a patent case involving a so-called skinny label to proceed threatens the availability of low-cost generic drugs.”

This week, and as it turns out, next Monday, is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 70 cases. Of the 70 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuits YouTube channel. This month, four cases schedules for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Early this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Arltons appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Central District of California, which held that AeroVironment could not be held liable for infringement. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

As we have previously reported, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case. In it, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. This is our argument preview.

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

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

Four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case. In it, Titanium appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. This is our argument preview.

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.