FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and the summary affirmances.

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

• an opinion piece suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in In re Satius Holding, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Satius appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an ex parte reexamination. In the appeal, Satius presents questions related to claim construction and prosecution history disclaimer. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Lourie and Hughes heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, four nonprecedential opinions, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of Ohio. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Western District of Michigan. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissal and summary affirmance.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, three nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 Summary Affirmances. One precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One nonprecedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal, and two nonprecedential orders dismiss petitions. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

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

• an obituary discussing the life of George Hutchinson, the Federal Circuit’s first clerk;
• an article highlighting “major [patent] decisions from the beginning of 2026”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision “may affect where” a federal government employees’ “case is decided more than whether the employees ultimately prevail.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two Rule 36 summary affirmances. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a takings case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the summary affirmances.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a pro se case and one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Federal Claims, and one comes in response to a petition for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. One nonprecedential order denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders as well as 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 explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made”;
• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation”;
• a blog post highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.”