FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court set a date for oral argument in a patent case; a new petition was filed in a patent case addressing expert witness testimony and the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed; a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a takings case; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case addressing appellate procedure. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, a new petition was filed in a pro se case and two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two other pro se cases. Here are the details.

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

• an article analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel”;
• a blog post arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion”; and
• an article addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.”

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

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

• an article arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex”;
• an article suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients”;
• an article arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page”; and
• a blog post highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case, a case addressing sanctions, and a pro se case. The Supreme Court also denied petitions in a veterans case, a case addressing the Quiet Title Act, and four pro se cases. Here are the details.

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 Supreme Court is “set to start a four-week recess . . . without having ruled on pending challenges to most of the duties Trump has imposed over the last year”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a “skinny labels” patent fight that could have “broad consequences for generic drug makers”; and
• a blog post predicting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “is likely to undergo a dramatic transformation in 2026 based upon the convergence of two parallel developments.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent Infringement. A new petition was filed in a patent case addressing eligibility. Waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same case addressing eligibility and another patent case addressing appellate procedure. And, finally, an amicus brief was filed in veterans disability benefits case. Here are the details.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc, a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court will review the following questions:

1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

Here is more information about the case.