FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reviewing a recent Federal Circuit opinion and arguing a “defendant who is temporarily excluded from the market on the basis of a patent that turns out, ex post, to have been either invalid or not infringed (or otherwise unenforceable)” should be “compensated for the interim losses it suffers”;
• an article suggesting that “[s]atisfying the written description and enablement requirements has emerged as a significant challenge in patenting [antibody-drug conjugates] inventions in the U.S.”;
• an article by Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley “reflecting not only on what the Founders rejected, but on what they tried to build”; and
• an article highlighting that “President Donald Trump . . . threatened a 100% tax on imports from any country that imposes a tax on digital services from United States companies.”

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

• a blog post discussing how a recent “concurrence . . . provides more structure to the ‘skilled searcher conducting a diligent search’ estoppel test” related to inter partes review proceedings;
• an article highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “suggests that plaintiffs may not have the final word” on whether “trade secret plaintiffs can try to channel cases into other courts of appeals by strategically withholding patent claims”;
• a blog post covering how the USPTO “issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . decision granting institution in three inter partes review . . . proceedings”; and
• an article noting how, for “one day in July, Washingtonians will get access to an under-the-radar building steps away from the White House that’s filled with artifacts spanning American history.”

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

• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “stressed that the inventorship listed on a patent demands perfection”;
• a blog post noting “a final rule in the Federal Register” explains that the USPTO “is ‘revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents’”;
• an article discussing how the “Department of Justice has told the Federal Circuit that multibillion-dollar patent infringement litigation should be directed at the government, instead of Moderna”; and
• an article arguing “[m]any news outlets have struggled to accurately characterise the nature of the proceedings surrounding [Judge] Newman, leading to widespread misunderstanding among readers and legal observers alike.”

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

• an article arguing that, “[a]s state ‘anti-troll’ statutes become more commonly used in patent disputes, courts need a jurisdictional rule that is clear and respects the difference between federal patent cases and state-law cases that simply have patents in them”;
• a blog post covering how a recent Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the court’s jurisdiction “may run well beyond its modest-looking facts”;
• a blog post reporting how the “full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026’ (NO FAKES Act)”; and
• an article highlighting how in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit to be argued this fall the Supreme Court “will shed new light and legalities on whether military veterans can bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . when filing legal challenges for benefits.”

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 “Federal Circuit on Wednesday agreed to conduct en banc review over the firing of two immigration judges”;
•  an article similarly outlining how the Federal Circuit “granted two former Justice Department employees’ request to expedite the appeal of their 2025 firings”;
• a blog post examining how, “in response to the May 12 opposition brief of . . . Chief Judge Kimberly Moore,” the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for certiorari”; and
• an article also discussing how the Supreme Court “declined . . . to hear a bid by the nation’s oldest federal judge, 98-year-old Pauline Newman, to overturn her suspension from duties.”

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc initial hearing in Jackler v. Department of Justice to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The question presented is: “Whether the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedural and substantive protections for federal workers conflict with the President’s Article II removal power.” Here is the full text of this morning’s order. We will report more on this case later.

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 “Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article covering how the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for review without comment, as is typical”;
• an article reporting how late last week the Federal Circuit ruled the “U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February”; and
• an article similarly highlighting how Federal Circuit “extended its block on ​a lower court ruling against the Trump ‌administration’s 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act”;

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 the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

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 “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
• a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
• a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
• an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. We highlight:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s decision “may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent ‌lawsuits involving so-called ‘skinny labels’”;
• an article similarly reporting how the Supreme Court’s decision “is expected to strengthen legal protections for generic manufacturers that launch products using the Hatch-Waxman Act’s ‘carve-out’ process”;
• a blog post suggesting the Supreme Court’s decision “scolded” the Federal Circuit “for its recent approach” and “has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors”; and
• an article emphasizing that “all nine justices” joined Justice Jackson’s opinion in this “closely watched pharmaceutical patent dispute.”