FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. As for pending petitions, new petitions were filed in a patent case, a government contract case, and a pro se case; briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and a takings case; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a Rule 36 case and two pro se cases; five amicus briefs were filed in a government contract case; and three petitions were denied, one in a Rule 36 case and two in pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three Rule 36 judgments. The precedential opinion comes in an patent infringement case where a defendants challenged the validity of the asserted patent claims due to indefiniteness. While the district court found the claims invalid, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Happy Veterans Day! Due to the holiday, the Federal Circuit is closed and did not release any opinions or orders on its website. FedCircuitBlog extends its thanks to all who have served our country!

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

• an article highlighting that “the major questions doctrine was a focal point” during the oral argument for President Trump’s tariffs case;
• a blog post discussing how, during the oral argument in President Trump’s tariffs case, “special attention” was given “to one verb in particular: the verb ‘regulate’”;
• an article suggesting, “[i]f the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, the outcome will not be national collapse but relief”; and
• an article arguing “extensive quotes from Mr. Trump” in a key filing made by the government “may change the legal calculus” in President Trump’s tariffs case.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced it has adopted amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Practice Notes. After receiving and reviewing public comments to the proposed amendments, published on September 16, the court has ordered the adoption of the proposed amendments, as amended, effective December 1, 2025. The announcement includes links to the court’s order, a draft proof copy of the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, and a summary of the adopted amendments. Here is a full text to the announcement along with links to the materials.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two non precedential opinions and one Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and includes a dissenting opinion by Judge Wallach. The other comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and three Rule 36 judgments. All three opinions come in pro se appeals. Two come in appeals of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article suggesting “[t]he Supreme Court appeared skeptical . . . that President Donald Trump has legal authority to impose tariffs”;
• an article similarly reporting a “majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical . . . about President Donald Trump’s ability to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs, putting at risk a cornerstone of his agenda in the biggest legal test yet of his boundary-pushing presidency”;
• an article also indicating “U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts . . . over the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs,” but recognizing that “some of the conservative justices also stressed the inherent authority of presidents in dealing with foreign countries, suggesting the court could be sharply divided in the outcome of the case”; and
• a blog post suggesting “a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs” on the ground “that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential order, three nonprecedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and an errata. The precedential order comes in a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to vacate an order deinstituting an inter partes review proceeding. Two of the orders deny similar petitions of writs of mandamus. All three nonprecedential opinions come in pro se appeals, two from the Merit Systems Protection Board and one from the Court of Federal Claims. The remaining two orders dismiss appeals. Here are introductions to the opinions and links to the orders and the errata.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Also, since our last update, four new petitions have been filed in takings, patent, and pro se cases; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a trademark case and a pro se patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case challenging the Federal Circuit’s use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 and its application of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Here are the details.