FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, an errata, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions addresses an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the errata and Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that the Clerk’s Office and Circuit Library will be temporarily unavailable for public services and support this afternoon. Electronic filing will be available. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, a new amicus brief was filed in the case addressing President Trump’s tariffs. Regarding pending petitions, since our last update a petition was filed in a government contract case, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case, five amicus briefs were filed in a patent case, one amicus brief was filed in a takings case, and a petition in a pro se case was denied. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released six precedential opinions, six nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Of the precedential opinions, three come in patent cases, while one comes in an antidumping trade case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, three come in patent cases, one comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two come in cases dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims for lack of jurisdiction. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed, one raising questions related to claim construction and Rule 36 summary affirmances and one raising questions related to awards of attorneys’ fees and obviousness. The Federal Circuit also denied petitions for en banc rehearing in two cases, one raising a question related to claim construction and one raising questions related to Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and five Rule 36 judgments. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders are dismissals of appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article reporting how Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group, argued in its amicus brief that “even if a 1977 law . . . gives the president unbounded tariff authority, Congress doesn’t have the authority to delegate that kind of ‘immense power’”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision on President Trump’s tariffs “could constrain or restore executive latitude over trade policy”;
• a blog post discussing what a recent Federal Circuit decision “might mean for the patenting of inventions relating to artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, and by extension, America’s leadership in AI development”; and
• an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will achieve “[f]aster office actions, improved prior art searches and a more consistent application of the law” in patent examination “due to increased use of artificial intelligence.”

The Federal Circuit did not issue any opinions today in recognition of Columbus Day. Enjoy the long holiday weekend!

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. The case, Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., raises several questions, most prominently questions concerning patent infringement and the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Judges Prost, Cunningham, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.