FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the orders dismissed an appeal, while the other denied petitions for writs of mandamus, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Here are the introductions to the opinion and the denials of the petitions, along with a link to the dismissal.

Four cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., a patent case. In this case, Arendi appeals a judgment of a district court, raising questions concerning patent eligibility, claim construction, indefiniteness, and infringement. This is our argument preview.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, and the nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

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

• a piece suggesting “President Donald Trump’s strategy for defending his tariffs in court is to make the case about himself as much as possible — and dare the justices to defy him”;
• an article discussing how John Squires, the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “brings a blend of technical fluency, institutional scale and market-hardened pragmatism to the USPTO at a key moment for innovation”;
• a blog post commenting on how closing the Rocky Mountain Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office eliminated “the ability to recruit new examiners from across the country” and threatened to “undo years of progress”; and
• a blog post suggesting a Federal Circuit decision, which “presents a pivotal dispute concerning the intersection of patent law and ‘after-arising technology,’” is a “significant patent ruling of 2025.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In the case, Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., a panel consisting of Judges Lourie, Bryson, and Chen heard the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s challenge to a district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument recap.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three response briefs have been filed by parties opposing President Trump’s tariffs along with two amicus briefs in favor of the Federal Circuit’s judgment. Three new petitions have also been filed: one comes in a trademark case, another comes in a case addressing claims under the Quiet Title Act, and the third comes in a military disability retirement benefits case. Two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in the same patent case, along with two amicus briefs favoring review. Two reply briefs were filed in another patent case. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected three petitions, one in a patent case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and an errata. Both opinions come in pro se appeals from the Court of Federal Claims in related tax refund cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the errata.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction and preambles; one new response has been filed to a petition that raises a question related to the presumption of validity and the written description requirement; and three petitions for en banc rehearing have been denied in cases raising questions related to ineligibility, claim construction, and prosecution history estoppel. Here are the details.

Two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Director of the Office of Personnel Management v. Moulton, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB affirmed an administrative judge’s decision that a statutory provision requires the Office of Personnel Management “to divide an annuity supplement only if expressly provided for in a court order.” Judge Prost authored an opinion for the Federal Circuit affirming the judgment. In particular, the court held “that OPM cannot divide a retiree’s annuity supplement unless the division of the supplement is expressly provided for in a court order.” This is our opinion summary.