FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and four nonprecedential orders. The opinion comes in a pro se appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Notably, Judge Cunningham concurred only in the result. One of the orders affirms a dismissal of a complaint by the Court of Federal Claims; another grants a motion to transfer an appeal; the final two dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first two orders, along with links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post observing how “[t]he year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• an article examining how a recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit expanded prosecution disclaimers to include examiner-defined species — independent and distinct inventions within a patent application — in restriction practice”; and
• an article discussing “whether importers that have already paid the tariffs . . . would be entitled to refunds” and “how might that refund process work” if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariffs.

The Federal Circuit is closed today and as a result did not release any new opinions or orders on its website.

Merry Christmas! The Federal Circuit is closed and as a result did not release any new opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The Federal Circuit is closed today. Accordingly, no opinions or orders were released this morning. Here is a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in appeals of final written decisions in three inter partes review proceedings initiated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One of the nonprecedential opinions also comes in an appeal of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other comes in an appeal of a decision by the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. Both come in appeals of decisions from the Court of Federal Claims. One comes in a vaccine case, and the other in a takings case. Notably, the opinion in the vaccine case is one that has been modified and reissued following a petition for rehearing. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced it will be closed on December 24, 25, and 26 this year, and each of these dates will be considered a “legal holiday” for purposes of computation of time and motions to enlarge time. All electronic filing deadlines will remain in effect. Here is the text of the full announcement and a link to the relevant order.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. All three come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 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 reporting how “Costco has sued the Trump administration for a refund of the tariffs it has paid on imported goods”;
• an article discussing how “[t]here are a number of alternative statutes that the administration could rely on to issue” tariffs “instead of IEEPA” if President Trump’s tariffs are struck down by the Supreme Court;
• a blog post arguing recent Federal Circuit decisions “establish that the ‘final and nonappealable’ language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars virtually all judicial oversight of [inter partes review] institution decisions, whether framed as constitutional due process claims, statutory ultra vires arguments, or Administrative Procedure Act challenges”; and
• a blog post recounting how the Supreme Court denied certiorari in “a case that asked the Justices to clarify U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent around using ‘after-arising technology’ to hold a patent invalid in the context of patent-infringement suits.”