FedCircuitBlog

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 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 an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update five amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in a patent case were filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a trade case and two pro se cases; an amicus brief supporting the petitioner in a patent case was filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a takings case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in the cases challenging President Trump’s tarrifs. The order grants a motion to immediately issue mandates in the appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board in an inter partes review proceeding. The other opinion comes in pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to yesterday’s order and today’s opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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.”

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.