FedCircuitBlog

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

• a piece suggesting recent decisions by Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart “provide helpful guidance” on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will interpret and apply new discretionary denial procedures;
• a post criticizing Stewart for having “inundated patent litigators in May and June with dozens of rulings altering the landscape of discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”;
• an article discussing how “Congress is considering a bill that would effectively overturn” Supreme Court decisions dealing with patent protections, thus “[empowering] US innovators to compete with their rivals in China and Europe on a level playing field”; and
• a blog post indicating “[a]n important recent development in pharmaceutical patent law is the Federal Circuit’s embrace of . . . infringement by drug label.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case appealed from the Patent and Trademark Office. This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five nonprecedential opinions. Two arose from appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, and one from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released two Rule 36 judgments and two more dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the parties filed their en banc briefs in a pending case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference in the context of a regulation adopted by the Office of Personnel Management related to overtime pay. Two amicus briefs were also filed in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit invited a response from appellants in two patent cases and denied three petitions. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The court also released two Rule 36 judgments and four nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential orders denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in a case appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Another denied petitioners the right to appeal in a case decided by the Court of Federal Claims. Finally, the remaining two nonprecedential orders released today also dismissed appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that it intends to sit in and around Boston as part of its October 2025 session while concurrently holding its regular session in Washington, D.C. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit also released five additional nonprecedential opinions in two patent cases, two veterans cases, and two cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and one nonprecedential order transferring an appeal. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing how administrative judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board have “seen a flood of new cases land on their dockets, causing their caseloads to increase by the week;”
• a blog post focusing on United States Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s “newly implemented ‘settled expectations’ doctrine that treats patent age as a primary factor for denying institution;”
• a piece claiming “acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s discretionary denial in the iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. cases on June 6 has sent shockwaves through the patent litigation community;” and
• an article maintaining “[p]roposed legislation to change the process adjudicating patent infringement in cases involving ‘skinny labels’ is a solution in search of a problem.”

Late last Thursday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the dismissals came in patent cases appealed from the District of Colorado and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One of the dismissals came in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts, as well as one nonprecedential order dismissing a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion, along with links to the dismissals.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

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

• an article examining how “[t]ech companies are embracing an unorthodox appellate procedure to challenge policy shifts expanding the US Patent and Trademark Office director’s power”;
• another article covering how advocacy groups “have thrown their support behind” a challenge to the USPTO’s retroactive application of “a decision withdrawing earlier guidance on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should not review patent challenges”;
• a post discussing how “certain comments” by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director nominee John Squires “during his Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearing . . . could reflect alignment not only with Acting Director Stewart, but with Congress’s objective when it passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision for offering “a concerning example of the Federal Circuit departing from well-established patent claim construction doctrine”; and
• a piece covering how “James Woodruff II, Trump’s nominee” for the Merit Systems Protection Board, saw his nomination advance out of a Senate committee “on an 8-4 vote.”