FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article analyzing the “possible outcomes . . . and the downstream impact of the Supreme Court decision” in President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a commentary discussing how the Supreme Court’s intervention in the “skinny label” patent case “has drawn immediate attention from pharmaceutical companies and their counsel”;
• a blog post arguing “it is time for the Supreme Court to step in and provide a definition and workable test for the abstract-ideas exclusion”; and
• an article addressing whether “the U.S. patent system has shown measurable signs of becoming more favorable to patent owners, particularly in the context of post-grant proceedings such as inter partes review . . . and post-grant review.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions and three additional nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. One of the opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other two come in pro se challenges to decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, raising a question related to claims of unfair competition under the Lanham Act. The Federal Circuit also denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to marking, attorneys fees, eligibility, and appellate procedure. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case that reverses a district court and finds all asserted claims invalid for lack of eligibility. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in another patent case appealed from another district court and another in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Veterans Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order transferring a case, an errata, and a Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the transfer, errata, and summary affirmance.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and three Rule 36 judgments.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.