FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article arguing that, “[a]s state ‘anti-troll’ statutes become more commonly used in patent disputes, courts need a jurisdictional rule that is clear and respects the difference between federal patent cases and state-law cases that simply have patents in them”;
• a blog post covering how a recent Federal Circuit’s holding regarding the court’s jurisdiction “may run well beyond its modest-looking facts”;
• a blog post reporting how the “full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the ‘Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026’ (NO FAKES Act)”; and
• an article highlighting how in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit to be argued this fall the Supreme Court “will shed new light and legalities on whether military veterans can bypass the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . when filing legal challenges for benefits.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. That’s all. Here is a link to the dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, A.L.M. Holding appealed a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Cunningham and Stark, the panel reversed and remanded. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website this morning given the Juneteenth holiday. Happy holiday and enjoy the weekend!

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

• an article discussing how the “Federal Circuit on Wednesday agreed to conduct en banc review over the firing of two immigration judges”;
•  an article similarly outlining how the Federal Circuit “granted two former Justice Department employees’ request to expedite the appeal of their 2025 firings”;
• a blog post examining how, “in response to the May 12 opposition brief of . . . Chief Judge Kimberly Moore,” the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for certiorari”; and
• an article also discussing how the Supreme Court “declined . . . to hear a bid by the nation’s oldest federal judge, 98-year-old Pauline Newman, to overturn her suspension from duties.”

Recently the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, LG Electronics appealed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment of eligibility and denied judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Lourie and Oetken, a district judge from New York sitting by designation, the panel vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition. This morning the court released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Washington, and the other comes in a whistleblower case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The nonprecedential opinion comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a government contract case, a patent case, and two pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board; two reply briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a trade case, a takings case, and a veterans case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc initial hearing in Jackler v. Department of Justice to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The question presented is: “Whether the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedural and substantive protections for federal workers conflict with the President’s Article II removal power.” Here is the full text of this morning’s order. We will report more on this case later.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order and three nonprecedential opinions. The order grants a petition for initial hearing en banc in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed form the District of New Jersey, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.