FedCircuitBlog

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

• a report highlighting that the Federal Circuit “is writing more opinions . . . several years after it faced criticism from a group of patent lawyers and academics”;
• an article noting how the Federal Circuit “handed SpaceTime3D, Inc. mixed results in two nonprecedential decisions involving graphical user interface patents challenged by Apple and Google”; and
• a piece explaining how “two dozen states pushed the Federal Circuit . . . to revive their specific claims against now-expired temporary tariffs while simultaneously pushing the panel to otherwise back the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling that the tariffs were illegal.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no cases pending before the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a case addressing federal employment law and two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two other pro se cases; and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

As we reported Monday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Barron v. United States. In it, 54 plaintiffs appeal dismissals by the Court of Federal Claims of their takings claims. The appeal present questions related to railroad easements and the interpretation of condemnation decrees and deeds under Florida law. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new briefs filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal powers. As for pending petitions, four new petitions were filed in cases raising questions relating to claim construction, appellate procedure, and petitions for inter partes review. The court also denied one petition raising issues regarding claim construction and appellate procedure. 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 “Texas’ reputation as the nation’s top venue for patent disputes hasn’t faded”;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit ruling related to patent marking “will complicate licensing talks” between patent owners and prospective licensees and “and give defendants a route to limit or escape damages in some cases”;
• a press release reporting how, “[o]n the eve of the 250th anniversary of Independence Day, in the nation’s capital, the Federal Circuit Center for Innovation and Law invited the public to the Justice Up Close, History All Around civics program”; and
• an article “ranking the Circuit Courts by importance.”

Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in September attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case. In this case, Netlist appeals a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review, which invalidated a claim of a Netlist patent. 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:

• a piece arguing the Federal Circuit’s 2026 docket reveals a “recurring concern” with threshold questions of “standing, jurisdiction, reviewability, finality and adjudicative authority” that cut across substantive fields;
• an article reporting on a new petition for writ of certiorari arguing the Federal Circuit has effectively collapsed the Supreme Court’s two-step eligibility framework into “a single inquiry”; and
• a commentary explaining how a recent Federal Circuit decision sharpened the “skilled searcher” standard for determining what prior art grounds a petitioner “reasonably could have raised” under the statutory inter partes review estoppel provision.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and a pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in an Indian Tucker Act 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 that “[t]wo decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within the past couple of months have brought” the difference between patent and trademark preemptive infringement remedies “into sharper focus”;
• a blog post discussing how “[p]atent filings are now mined not only by competitors, but by governments, intelligence agencies, sovereign investors, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing millions of documents simultaneously”;
• an article highlighting how “[t]wo important patent prosecution data points that are in tension: [t]he vast majority of patent applications are initially rejected by the patent examiner; and [t]he vast majority of patent applications eventually issue as a patent”; and
• an article arguing that, “over the past several months, the Trump administration has eroded” the Merit System Protection Board’s “authority in a series of steps that some former officials say have left the board a shell of the institution it once was.”

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

• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “decision is important because it overturns USPTO policy implementing” the America Invents Act and, “ultimately, . . . gives patent owners a new way to knock out references that reach back to a priority filing date”;
• a blog post contemplating how the “absence of a presumption of irreparable harm” in a recent Federal Circuit decision “remains a fraught issue”;
• a blog post reporting that “[f]ormer Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Coke Morgan Stewart, has joined the Council for Innovation Promotion as President and CEO;” and
• an article arguing that President “Trump’s resistance to judicial review goes beyond criticizing the reasoning or conclusions of judges who rule against him.”