FedCircuitBlog

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Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. Both opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility. One new response was filed in response to a petition raising a question related to unfair competition claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing that raised questions related to the written description requirement and venue, respectively. 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Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order in the cases challenging President Trump’s tarrifs.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 This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment.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.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims in a vaccine case. The order dismisses an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

This week, and as it turns out, next Monday, is Court week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 14 panels to consider 70 cases. Of the 70 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 55. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuits YouTube channel. This month, four cases schedules for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

Early this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arlton v. AeroVironment, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Arltons appealed from a summary judgment entered by the Central District of California, which held that AeroVironment could not be held liable for infringement. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. In an opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Prost and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our summary of the Federal Circuit’s opinion.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Notably, it includes an opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Judge Dyk. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders rules on a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; the other rules on a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent and Trademark Office to to vacate non-institution decisions and reconsider petitions for inter partes review without relying on time-to-trial as a factor. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

As we’ve been reporting, four cases cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Christensen v. United States, a tax case. In it, the United States is appealing a decision by the Court of Federal Claims allowing two American citizens residing in France to claim a foreign tax credit. This is our argument preview.