FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting the timing of the Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s tariff case might be related to the idea “SCOTUS would presumably want to give guidance to lower courts on how they should rule on these suits”;
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit dissenting opinion that “offers an attack on how the Federal Circuit has been applying the ‘plainly dissimilar’ standard for design patent infringement”;
• an article indicating that, “[o]ver the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has treated artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions more favorably under Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act than they have been in years”; and
• an article suggesting inter partes reviews “are essentially unavailable for the majority of patents now being asserted in litigation.”

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, a new petition was filed in a pro se case and two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two other pro se cases. 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 analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel”;
• a blog post arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion”; and
• an article addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, raising a question related to claims of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to marking, attorneys fees, eligibility, 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 explaining how the Supreme Court drafts and issues opinions and “how that process might be playing out in the tariffs dispute”;
• an article discussing how the “Court of International Trade . . . updated its mandatory corporate disclosure form to include information about third-party litigation funders,” as the court is “already seeing a spike in refund disputes over Trump administration tariffs”;
• an article arguing “major shifts in policy will influence patents and trademarks in 2026”; and
• a blog post exploring patent “obviousness rejections that pile on reference after reference, sometimes combining five, seven, or even a dozen separate documents to reconstruct the claimed invention.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Google LLC, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Google filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a decision by the Patent and Trademark Office denying its petitions for inter partes review and to require the agency to reconsider its petitions without relying on any “settled expectations” rule. In an order authored by Judge Wallach, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

In December, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision of the Eastern District of Texas to deny leave for a third party to intervene and seek the unsealing of various filings. In an opinion authored by Judge Bryson, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen, dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the third party’s motion for permissive intervention.

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 and two pro se cases; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; and three briefs in opposition were filed, two in a patent case and one in a takings 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 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.