On April 30, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released this year’s Special 301 Report, which surveys the effectiveness of intellectual property (IP) rights and enforcement abroad and identifies foreign nations where IP protections are uncertain or disregarded. The 2026 report marks the first time in 13 years that a Priority Foreign Country (PFC) has been named, with Vietnam being identified as a PFC for persistent failures to address several long-standing IP concerns. The USTR has also added the European Union (EU) to the Special 301 Report’s Watch List, the first time since 2006 that the continental government has been identified for IP-related concerns in addition to individual European nations.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant Decision on Remand on Monday, April 27, 2026, clarifying when estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) attaches and—critically—what it means to “request” a proceeding “before the Office.” The ruling arises from an increasingly common set of circumstances—HID had initially filed an inter partes review (IPR) against CPC Patent Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, and subsequently requested ex parte reexamination requests of that same patent. Monday’s decision clarifies that a party is estopped from “requesting” ex parte reexam at the moment the IPR final written decision issues when the USPTO has yet to order ex parte reexam.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the U.S. Trade Representative issues its annual Special 301 Report listing the European Union as a Watch List nation for IP-related issues; Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) publicly oppose the Trump Administration’s decisions to cut federal funding for science and upend the National Science Board; and more.

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte brought together leaders from government, academia, industry, and the defense community for its 2026 Invention of the Year Awards, an evening that showcased the university’s growing role as a national engine of innovation, commercialization, and technological impact.

Whether or not the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wants to admit it, over most of the last generation there has been a secret examination docket. Not surprisingly, such a secret examination docket is strictly prohibited by federal law. A newly filed joint status report in Morinville v. USPTO brings this issue to the fore and underscores the lack of transparency and accountability of secret internal patent review programs at the USPTO. Procedurally, the latest filing seeks to expose the USPTO shadow docket through a new round of discovery, which is currently being considered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case with broad implications for the generic industry’s practice of “skinny labeling” and the induced infringement standard for patent law and beyond. IPWatchdog reached out to members of the IP community for their initial takeaways from yesterday’s arguments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday in Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, vacating a determination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of a Federal Express Corporation patent were unpatentable as obvious. The CAFC also held that it could not review the PTAB’s refusal to determine whether all real parties in interest were identified in the petition for inter partes review (IPR).

A full-time, fully remote role is available at Thompson Patent Law (TPL) for an experienced Associate Patent Attorney. TPL understands that many attorneys are looking for more – a greater challenge, consistent workflow, a meaningful culture, and real opportunities to grow – and offers a steady flow of high-quality patent work, a full-time remote role supported by strong systems, a respectful, values-driven culture, and direct mentorship from Craige Thompson, JD, MBA, EE, PE, Managing Principal Patent Attorney and #1 Amazon best-selling author of Patent Offense.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Hikma v. Amarin, a closely-watched case that in part asks the Justices to weigh in on whether a drugmaker calling its product a “generic version” while citing public sales information about the branded drug induces infringement of a patented use fully carved out by the generic’s label. Hikma’s petition also asks whether a complaint states an induced infringement claim if it fails to allege any instruction or statement by the defendant mentioning the patented use. While some Justices today questioned why the case was even before them, others seemed concerned about the potential impact of the case for the generic pharmaceutical industry.

Last week, Bloomberg Law broke the news that U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas would leave the Western Texas bench by the end of this August. Nominated to the federal judiciary during the first Trump Administration, Judge Albright spent his relatively short time on the bench cutting a courageous pathway through patent law, which created some controversy in Congress, but notably has earned him a reputation of thoughtfulness and fairness in the application of patent law among plaintiff- and defendant-side lawyers arguing in his courtroom.

Most companies entering a joint development agreement are focused on making the project work. What they are less focused on—and what can create serious problems years down the line—is what happens to the confidential information shared during that project once it ends. That’s one of the central arguments Emily Teesdale, founder of Pivot IP, makes in a recent episode of IP Innovators.

Harrity & Harrity is expanding and seeks experienced patent attorneys or agents who thrive in handling electrical or mechanical technology. You will draft and prosecute high-value applications for world-class innovators while working remotely (in the U.S.) within a close-knit, highly collaborative team. A solid foundation in semiconductors or 5G wireless is a welcome plus.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice, underscores a fundamental shift underway in how sophisticated organizations approach intellectual property. What was once a reactive, litigation-centric discipline, is rapidly evolving into something far more strategic—an integrated function that sits at the intersection of technology, business, and risk management. Ultimately, what emerged from this discussion is a vision of IP practice that is far more integrated and strategic than the traditional model. It is a shift from courtroom to boardroom counselor—from reactive defense to proactive governance. For practitioners, this requires a broader skill set and a willingness to engage deeply with technology and business. For clients, it offers the promise of more effective risk management and better alignment between legal strategy and commercial objectives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., vacating in part and affirming in part a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The CAFC determined that the district court incorrectly found the “optimization claims” of Constellation Designs, LLC’s patents directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but correctly found the “constellation claims” eligible.

Pharmaceutical patent litigators are no strangers to the delicate dance between the Hatch-Waxman Act and 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). On one side of this statutory tightrope lies the Hatch-Waxman Act’s Section VIII pathway, which was designed to expedite affordable generic competition by allowing manufacturers to seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval solely for unpatented indications—the proverbial “skinny label.” On the flip side lies Section 271(b), which imposes strict liability on anyone who “actively induces” patent infringement.