FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing “a recent decision from the . . . Federal Circuit reinforcing the boundaries of patent eligibility as it concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning models”;
• a blog post covering how the “Office of Personnel Management moved Friday to finalize regulations that collectively seize jurisdiction over thousands of employee appeals, as the federal government’s dedicated HR agency moves to centralize power over the federal workforce”; and
• an article highlighting purported experts as saying that, “while Section 301 is the apparent ‘Plan C’ for enacting tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports, the law gives the president a better legal defense for the duties.”

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

• an article discussing 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 to explore how law, innovation, science, and civic action have shaped the nation”;
• a blog post highlighting how USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart “announced this week that she will be leaving the Office as of this Friday”; and
• a blog post noting how “[n]early four dozen Democrats are calling for the reversal of a key Merit Systems Protection Board decision that they say could greatly expand presidential firing powers across the career federal workforce.”

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

• an article suggesting that “[w]hether machine learning is patent eligible depends upon whether you ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how “the majority of Schedule A cases ‘involve allegations of trademark or design patent infringement, though some allege violations of copyrights or of utility patents”;
• a blog post highlighting highlighting how, “[i]n the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what”; and
• a blog post covering how the USPTO’s “‘settled expectations’ policy” for denying petitions for inter partes review “now has a second challenger at the Supreme Court.”

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, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace”; and
• a report analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.”

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

• an article noting how “[s]everal U.S. senators expressed strong support at a hearing Tuesday for a bill aimed at expanding which inventions are eligible for patents, while others appeared to have reservations about the potential effect of the proposed changes on healthcare costs”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reaffirmed its understanding that so-called ‘book of wisdom’ evidence can be used in estimating the hypothetical bargain the parties would have negotiated as of the date of infringement, but not to alter the terms of the bargain they would have struck in view of ex post evidence”;
• a blog post highlighting how a “unanimous opinion authored by Judge Hughes affirmed” fixing “the government’s liability for infringing . . . through a hypothetical negotiation rather than simply using the rates in the parties’ prior license”; and
• a blog post suggesting risk to patent rights created using artificial intelligence “almost never comes from the AI model’s involvement.”

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

• an article covering how “Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider her bid to save a suit against her fellow judges for suspending her from the bench over her refusal to undergo medical tests”;
• a blog post reporting how the Patent Office “has finalized a rule requiring foreign-domiciled patent applicants, inventors, and owners to be represented by a registered patent practitioner in nearly everything they file;”
• an article discussing how “[m]ajor patent systems, including the United States, require a human inventive contribution”; and
• an article suggesting that “[i]mportant progress has been made on repaying illegally collected tariffs.”

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

• an opinion piece suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.”

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

• an obituary discussing the life of George Hutchinson, the Federal Circuit’s first clerk;
• an article highlighting “major [patent] decisions from the beginning of 2026”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision “may affect where” a federal government employees’ “case is decided more than whether the employees ultimately prevail.”

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

• a blog post explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made”;
• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation”;
• a blog post highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.”

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.”