FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that the Federal Circuit Center for Innovation & Law received an award earlier this week. Here is the text to the full announcement along with a link to the full story.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Two of the opinions come in patent cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from a district court. The third opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The fourth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order transfers an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit announced that it has approved updates to the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 sessions calendars and provided a link to the new calendars on its website. Here is the full text of the announcement, along with the link to the new calendars.

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

• an article reporting how the Supreme Court is “set to start a four-week recess . . . without having ruled on pending challenges to most of the duties Trump has imposed over the last year”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court agreed to hear a “skinny labels” patent fight that could have “broad consequences for generic drug makers”; and
• a blog post predicting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “is likely to undergo a dramatic transformation in 2026 based upon the convergence of two parallel developments.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and four nonprecedential orders. One of the precedential opinions comes in a patent infringement case; the other precedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential opinion comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the nonprecedential orders denies a petition for a writ of mandamus; another transfers a case. The other two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in a patent case addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent Infringement. A new petition was filed in a patent case addressing eligibility. Waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same case addressing eligibility and another patent case addressing appellate procedure. And, finally, an amicus brief was filed in veterans disability benefits case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions and seven nonprecedential orders. Four of the opinions come in patent cases, including two appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The fifth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, while the sixth opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Five of the orders dismiss appeals while two transfer cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders transferring cases and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed. These petitions raise questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for en banc rehearing that raised a question related to sanctions. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court both abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony and erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Judge Prost filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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

• an article predicting the “International Trade Commission will have an active 2026 managing its docket of patent cases due to expanded access for patent owners and operational delays”;
• a blog post discussing how former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu testified at the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee hearing and “spoke to several ways that our nation’s adversaries and trading partners alike are weakening American IP rights and how those issues should be addressed by U.S. policymakers”;
• an article reporting how “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires has denied 47 requests for America Invents Act patent reviews and granted eight other petitions, continuing his practice of spurning most patent challenges that reach his desk since he took over the handling of institution decisions”; and
• an article examining “a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that [inter partes review] estoppel does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexamination proceedings.”