FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and three Rule 36 judgments. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent infringement cases appealed from district courts, while the other two come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissal.

Last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed the International Trade Commission’s finding of no violation as to one set of parties (the “Active Respondents”) and the Commission’s entry of a limited exclusion order against another set of parties (the “Defaulting Respondents”). In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll, a panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Stoll, and Chen dismissed the appeal in part and affirmed the Commission’s decision in part. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article explaining how the Supreme Court drafts and issues opinions and “how that process might be playing out in the tariffs dispute”;
• an article discussing how the “Court of International Trade . . . updated its mandatory corporate disclosure form to include information about third-party litigation funders,” as the court is “already seeing a spike in refund disputes over Trump administration tariffs”;
• an article arguing “major shifts in policy will influence patents and trademarks in 2026”; and
• a blog post exploring patent “obviousness rejections that pile on reference after reference, sometimes combining five, seven, or even a dozen separate documents to reconstruct the claimed invention.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in patent infringement cases decided by district courts; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Google LLC, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Google filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a decision by the Patent and Trademark Office denying its petitions for inter partes review and to require the agency to reconsider its petitions without relying on any “settled expectations” rule. In an order authored by Judge Wallach, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Stoll, denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. One precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case decided by a district court, and the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Two of the orders dismiss appeals. The remaining order is a sue sponte order recalling a mandate for the limited purpose of correcting a misstatement in the opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order recalling the mandate, along with links to the dismissals.

In December, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision of the Eastern District of Texas to deny leave for a third party to intervene and seek the unsealing of various filings. In an opinion authored by Judge Bryson, the panel, consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen, dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the third party’s motion for permissive intervention.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case and two pro se cases; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; and three briefs in opposition were filed, two in a patent case and one in a takings case. Here are the details.

On Sunday, the Federal Circuit announced that it will remain open for business during the current lapse in federal appropriations, and that all scheduled arguments will proceed as scheduled. Here is the text to the full announcement along with a link to the court’s related order.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissal.