FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Bufkin v. Collins, a veterans case. Additionally, an opening merits brief and three amicus briefs in support of the petitioner were submitted in Soto v. United States, another veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case, and two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; two replies in support of petitions were filed in a patent case and a case related to Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trade 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. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions concerning an appeal related to obviousness, and the other comes in a pro se case. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising questions concerning after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. The court also denied two petitions, one concerning what patents should be listed in the Orange Book and the other concerning the burden of proof regarding enablement in inter partes review proceedings. 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:

• an article reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims”;
• a blog post arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
• a piece claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process”; and
• a report explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.”

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

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”

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.