FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues”;
• a blog post highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells”;
• an article discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before”; and
• an article commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.”

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

• an article suggesting the “Trump administration’s 10% stake in Intel Corp. may give plaintiffs in patent disputes a weapon against the company”;
• a blog post discussing how the “course of the proceedings involving the attempts to remove Judge Pauline Newman from the Federal Circuit is long and in many senses tragic”;
• a blog post observing how “the effective term for most U.S. patents is considerably shorter” than 20 years because “roughly 60% of all patentees now abandon their patents before the full term expires”; and
• an article noting how the “Federal Circuit’s rejection of all mandamus petitions asking it to rein in the way U.S. Patent and Trademark Office leadership is ​evaluating patent challenges cements the appeals court’s near-impossible standard for reviewing institution decisions.”

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

• a blog post describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists”;
• a blog post characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight”;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies”; and
• a blog post emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case.

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

• a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”

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

• an article reporting how Judge Newman “petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift her suspension from hearing new cases,” which has “lasted nearly two years”;
• a blog post analyzing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an interesting question relating to damages calculation”;
• a blog post discussing how the Supreme Court’s recent denial of a petition “leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that [published] U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review . . . validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act . . . statute; and
• an article suggesting the Patent and Trademark Office “has taken numerous notable steps” related to patent subject matter eligibility and that “these developments suggest a recalibration of the USPTO’s Section 101 approach, particularly for AI-related applications.”

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

• an article discussing how the “skinny label” patent case at the Supreme Court ”has the potential to elucidate for how far induced infringement” can reach;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires in an agency memo “added to the list of scenarios under which his office can strike down patent validity challenges in order to ‘protect American manufacturers and small business’”;
• a blog post observing how, “[u]nder today’s [utility] patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent,” and arguing “this restriction oppresses the American inventor”; and
• a commentary suggesting the Supreme Court’s tariff decision unravels “some . . . deeper themes and fault lines that the Court will grapple with in the future.”

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

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit has become, in the space of two years, one of the most consensus-oriented appellate courts in the federal system”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision seemed to deal with a “narrow administrative law issue,” but the “effect of the decision is far broader”;
• an article discussing how USPTO Director John Squires “issued numerous orders . . . holding that patent challenges should not move forward” because the challengers took “inconsistent claim construction positions” in court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article reporting how “more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits” since the Supreme Court “declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal.”

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

• an article arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.”

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

• a commentary arguing the Supreme Court’s decision rejecting President Trump’s tariffs “may prove to be the most important Supreme Court decision this century”;
• an article arguing against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s suggestion that “refunds could take years, entangled in further litigation and administrative delay” after the Supreme Court ruled against President Trump’s tariffs;
• a blog post commenting on how, “[i]n a series of nonprecedential orders issued between February 24 and 27, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected every theory that petitioners offered for why” the Patent and Trademark Office’s “discretionary denial of inter partes review should be subject to judicial oversight”; and
• an article highlighting how the U.S. government and other amici “have warned the U.S. Supreme Court” that the Federal Circuit’s decision “that allowed a patent case involving a so-called skinny label to proceed threatens the availability of low-cost generic drugs.”

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

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”