FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases”;
• an article analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce”;
• an article reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension”; and
• a blog post commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit Court heard oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a case we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In it, Apple Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Google LLC, and Intel Corp. appeal a district court’s determination that the adoption of a precedential framework by the Patent and Trademark Office to govern whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will institute inter partes review when parallel district court litigation exists did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judges Lourie, Taranto, and Chen heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap. 

Late Friday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and four Rule 36 judgments. Both opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the judgments and dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. The first opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission in a patent case; the second opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders grants a motion to permit an appearance for the purpose of withdrawing an appeal; the other four dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, a nonprecedential order, and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of International Trade; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the International Trade Commission. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; the other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. The order transfers a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the only pending case decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, there has been a lot of activity:

• eight new petitions were filed, one in a patent case and seven in pro se cases;
• nine waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases, a veterans case, an MSPB case, a government contracts case, and pro se cases;
• fourt briefs in opposition were filed in a Quiet Title Act case, a veterans case, and government contracts case;
• three reply briefs in support of petitions were filed in the same Quiet Title Act case, a trademark case, and the same government contracts case;
• sixteen amicus briefs have been filed two patent cases, a veterans case, and two takings cases;
• supplemental briefs were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and
• the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases, a takings case, a case addressing jurisdiction and a pro se case.

Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Two of the opinions come in patent cases; two come in appeals of decisions of the Court of Federal Claims, one of which involves a pro se party; one comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and one comes in an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed in patent cases, raising questions related to marking, exceptional case status, and eligibility. The Federal Circuit also issued an invitation for a response to a petition in a patent case raising questions related to prior art and the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.  

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a patent infringement case. The other two come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one of which involves a pro se party. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and judgment.

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

• an article reporting how National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett “predicted that the justices will rule in the White House’s favor” in President Trump’s tariffs cases;
• an article discussing how “[t]he Federal Circuit will kick-start 2026 continuing to grapple with a suite of challenges seeking to block significant changes to patent validity review procedures at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
• an article arguing “the Supreme Court should grant review in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Co.” to clarify the Loper Bright doctrine.