FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex”;
• an article suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients”;
• an article arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page”; and
• a blog post highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of anticipation of asserted claims. A panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 58 cases. Of the 58 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 43. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

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

• an article considering whether the Supreme Court will rule that “President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal”;
• an article providing a “statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2025”;
• a blog post discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise discretion to institute [American Invents Act] trials;” and
• a blog post analyzing how inter partes review “institution rates under Director John Squires have begun to climb.”

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 two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case, a case addressing sanctions, and a pro se case. The Supreme Court also denied petitions in a veterans case, a case addressing the Quiet Title Act, and four pro se 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 the court’s ability to decide the adequacy of written description without deferring to a jury’s verdict; one new amicus brief was filed in support of a petition that raised a question related to venue; and, finally, the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing one in a pro se case and the other that raised questions related to what qualifies as 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 highlighting White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment that “the White House has a ‘backup plan that’s really solid,’ . . . saying Trump would immediately impose tariffs of 10% ‘to make up most of the room’ from the IEEPA tariffs being struck down”;
• a blog post discussing how a “group of conservative leaders . . . sent a letter” to the Trump Administration “strongly supporting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s . . . Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . issued in October”; and
• an article examining how AI-assisted inventions, particularly in biologics innovation, “raise fundamental questions about how those inventions are disclosed and claimed in patent applications”;
• an article reporting how “USAA wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling” by the Federal Circuit “that set aside two jury awards totaling almost $223 million in patent-infringement cases.”

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 is “set to start a four-week recess . . . without having ruled on pending challenges to most of the duties Trump has imposed over the last year”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a “skinny labels” patent fight that could have “broad consequences for generic drug makers”; and
• a blog post predicting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “is likely to undergo a dramatic transformation in 2026 based upon the convergence of two parallel developments.”

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 granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent Infringement. A new petition was filed in a patent case addressing eligibility. Waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same case addressing eligibility and another patent case addressing appellate procedure. And, finally, an amicus brief was filed in veterans disability benefits 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, 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.