FedCircuitBlog

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.”

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Dougherty Electric, Inc. v. United States, a tax case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Dougherty Electric appealed a dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a tax refund suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Taranto, the court affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the case. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Today, the Federal Circuit provided a notice of a proposed amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The amendments would eliminate two things: use “passim” in any table of authorities and use of incorporation by reference to exceed any word count. Here is the full text of the announcement with links to more details.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Wyeth appealed a lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of invalidity for lack of enablement. The case presented questions related to claim construction as well as whether pre-issuance provisional rights under the Patent Act extend to induced infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment of invalidity. This is our summary of the opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract and takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in another takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and summary affirmance.

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.”

Today the Federal Circuit announced it will sit in Chicago as part of its 2026 October section. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order vacating a judgment and remanding a case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case. This morning, the court issued three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a correction of military records case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a copyright case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, ones comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and yesterday’s order as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.