FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in one of the court’s two en banc cases. As for pending petitions for en banc rehearing, an amicus brief was filed in support of a petition raising a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements, and the court denied a pro se litigant’s petition. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss HDCC’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. HDCC alleged that the government owed it an “equitable adjustment for various delays and increased costs” during its contract performance, and that HDCC “experienced excusable delays due to government changes and additions to the contact work relating to the retaining wall construction.” In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of HDCC’s claim regarding excusable delay related to a retaining wall; reversed the lower court’s dismissal with respect to government delays for delivery of rights of way, utility relocation, and a repayment claim; and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. Of the precedential opinions, both come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, two deny petitions and the other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece covering how two senators recently “introduced the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act of 2025, which would restore patent owners’ right to the rebuttable presumption that a court will issue an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement”;
• a blog post discussing how, in “a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s denial of a former patent examiner’s application to register as a patent practitioner”;
• a report explaining how recently “Halo Electronics’ nearly two-decades-old dispute with a rival completed its fifth trip to the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article reporting how the Trump administration is going to “rescind the Biden Justice Department’s (DOJ) plan to bail out pharmaceutical giant Moderna to the tune of up to $3 billion for alleged patent infringement.”

Late Friday, the Federal circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case without prejudice. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in an employment case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition, one dismisses an appeal, and one remands an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders denying the petition and dismissing the appeal and a link to the order remanding the case.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of the 62 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 45 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases will be presented to the en banc court after the court granted en banc rehearing. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases that attracted amicus briefs.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a government contract case on appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Nevada, while the other comes in a case on appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, two transfer cases and the other remands a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the remand.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege”;
• a report covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases”; and
• a report covering how a “US Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.”

As we highlighted on Monday, three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. In it, Rebecca Curtin appeals a judgment of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which concluded that she is not entitled to oppose UTH’s application to register the mark RAPUNZEL under a test known as the zone of interests framework. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and six nonprecedential orders. Today’s lone precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade. Today’s lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, three dismiss appeals, two transfer cases, and one grants a motion for a summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the dismissal.