FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and five nonprecedential orders. Both opinions come in patent cases. One of the orders dismisses an appeal, while the other orders come in appeals from the Patent and Trademark Office and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders other than dismissals, 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:

• an article reporting how “[t]he Supreme Court . . . agreed to fast-track review of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs, accepting a case that will test the limits of executive power and the president’s signature economic initiative”;
• an article detailing how “the Federal Circuit . . . faulted U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for denying [a] request for fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit”;
• a blog post explaining how “the Federal Circuit reversed a . . . rejection of computer system claims”; and
• an article reporting how “[t]he Federal Circuit revived a lawsuit [by] ruling a jury verdict was improperly tainted.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, eleven nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a pro se case in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the other comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Six of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Two of these denials come in patent cases. Another four orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, along with links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. With respect to pending petitions, since our last update new petitions were filed in a takings case and in two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and three pro se cases; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders. Both orders are dismissals of appeals. Here are links to the dismissals.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize President Trump’s recent tariffs. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by a district court. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.

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

• an article discussing how U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard W. Lutnick “removed all members of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s public advisory committees in March and those seats have remained empty, raising concerns that the agency’s leadership is operating in an echo chamber”;
• an article noting how U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent indicated “the U.S. may have to refund tens of billions of dollars in tariffs imposed since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term if the Supreme Court rules they are illegal”;
• an article reporting how Chief Judge Moore described a recent patent case as “fundamentally intellectually displeasing”; and
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “partially reversed and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . ruling that rejected a pro se applicant’s patent application claims as patent ineligible and indefinite.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one new en banc petition has been filed, raising a question regarding the appropriateness of Rule 36 summary affirmances; amicus briefs were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to standing and obviousness-type double patenting; and the court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by the Southern District of Texas, and the other is an appeal in a trade case decided by the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.