FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive, but it also has unwittingly complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals”;
• a blog post suggesting that, in a recent decision related to agency deference, the Federal Circuit’s “approach to the analysis [was] wrong”;
• a piece reporting how “Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has decided to end all current appointments to both the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effective immediately”; and
• an article suggesting a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing products into the U.S.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc review of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the order, the Federal Circuit requests new briefing related to the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing actions of the Office of Personnel Management. Notably, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which required courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous language in statutes meant for implementation by those agencies. Here is the introduction to the order.

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 in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”

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 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.”

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

• a piece written by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel assessing how, in his view, “patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are not sufficiently dependable”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “offers a glimpse into the evolving relationship between utility and enablement in patent law”;
• a report providing an overview of the “Federal Circuit’s reversals and vacaturs in 2024 [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appeals; and
• a blog post examining how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently “overturned an examiner’s rejections of an application directed to a quantum computing invention.”

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

• a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
• a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
• a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
• an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”