On January 24, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ordered expedited briefing to resolve the current circuit split over whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

Subsequent to remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U.S. 739 (2023) (SuperValu) was tried to a jury. On March 5, 2025, the jury found that SuperValu was ultimately not liable in a whistleblower action that has cast a wide shadow over FCA jurisprudence in recent years.

In a recent March 17, 2025 summary judgment order, federal district court Judge Georgette Castner in the District of New Jersey invalidated a patent that had been filed before the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) upon finding that a key feature of the invention, a pressure-activated cooling composition, had been created in a foreign factory rather than by the sole inventor named in the patent.  Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented.”