Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Judge Pauline Newman’s petition for certiorari in June, the Chief Justice of the United States has transferred Newman’s judicial misconduct case to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council. Newman has been asking for her case to be transferred for more than three years. According to an Eleventh Circuit Order published today, the Chief Justice transferred Newman’s complaint “and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter” to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council on August 19, 2026.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order Tuesday in In re Google LLC, granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) to transfer a patent infringement case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA). The CAFC concluded that “the decision to deny transfer here was patently erroneous.”

Taiyo, Nakajima & Kato, a top Japanese patent firm with a long history, is seeking a U.S. patent attorney to work at its main office in Tokyo, Japan. Qualified candidates will be licensed by the USPTO and at least one U.S. state bar, and will have 3-6 years of post-qualification experience filing and prosecuting U.S. patent applications and drafting opinions of counsel. A degree in electrical engineering, chemistry, or biotechnology is preferred, but significant experience in these areas will be considered in conjunction with other technical backgrounds. Japanese language ability, design application experience, litigation support, and previous work as local counsel for foreign firms are also desirable but not required.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Fran Cruz and Marlene Valderrama. Recorded before a live audience following IPWatchdog’s Women’s IP Forum, our conversation explored how professionals build relationships that lead to business, career opportunities, and better ways of doing their jobs. Drawing on their perspectives at Juristat and Halliburton, respectively, Fran and Marlene returned to a fundamental point: earning someone’s attention begins with understanding what matters to them. That requires asking questions and actually listening.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first major omnibus order list of the October 2026 term, denying petitions for writ of certiorari in a series of intellectual property-related cases. These denials from the nation’s highest court leave in place contested rulings over the application of apportionment principles to damages in patent and trade secret cases. Other cert denials include appeals to IP-related claims barred under res judicata, including one petition arguing for a manifest injustice exception, and yet another challenge to the Section 101 patent-eligibility inquiry developed at the Federal Circuit.

In economic theory, corporate value creation can be attributed to many factors and conflicting preferences. Prioritizing different factors produces a set of different outcomes and the outcome that is seemingly most efficient becomes the accepted norm. Sometimes however, corporate actors rely on accepted business practices which, while taken in the pursuit of the most optimal outcome, facilitate market distortions. Hit by a compute-driven demand shock and faced with resource scarcity, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have opted to allocate production capacity in a way that has exacerbated an industry- wide memory card supply shortage. But to fully understand why the price of hardware components and consumer electronic devices has been steadily surging, we must first start with Nvidia.

Carrie Hafeman, an independent inventor who has been fighting a years-long patent battle against Google and Microsoft, has filed a petition for rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June 2026 precedential decision affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating all claims of three of her patents. Hafeman is pursuing her case pro se after her attorneys recently withdrew.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in O’Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC, reversing in part, affirming in part, and vacating in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on two powered cover plate patents. The CAFC concluded that claim 1 of one patent is not as limited as the district court determined, and it upheld the district court’s rulings on other disputed claim limitations.

John F. Witherspoon, who passed away September 25, 2026, had a stellar career in patent law that spanned more than 50 years. He was devoted to private law practice, government service, and law school teaching. He was a beloved mentor to countless students and younger lawyers and an inspiration to all who knew him.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found claims 1 through 33 of a patent on herbicide-degrading enzymes unpatentable for lack of enablement. The CAFC rejected arguments that the PTAB improperly relied on experimental data generated after the patent’s priority date and abused its discretion in crediting an expert witness.

Congress has been holding hearings on pharmaceutical patents and drug prices, along with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fee-setting and oversight. During these hearings, America’s pharmaceutical innovators face an unusual criticism: They are accused of abusing the patent system not only when they invent new medicines, but also when they improve them.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit affirms the invalidation of twist drill patent claims because the challenged patent could not claim priority to a parent patent application qualifying as prior art; the Third Circuit unseals its ruling against ROSS Intelligence’s fair use defense indicating some limitations to the decision’s holding in the generative AI context;

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims of Satius Holding, LLC’s wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A., affirming a U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware judgment for Galderma S.A. on tortious interference, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation claims. The CAFC held that Truinject Corporation forfeited its arguments on appeal about the dismissal of its tortious interference claim and the summary judgment of no damages.

Patent infringement litigation is often discussed in terms of high-profile disputes or headline verdicts. What receives less attention is the cost of getting there. Whether a company is enforcing its patent rights or defending against a claim, the financial impact of patent litigation can be significant long before a case ever reaches trial. For many businesses, particularly those operating in technology-driven industries, patent litigation is no longer just a legal issue. It is a business consideration that can influence strategy, resource allocation and long-term planning.