FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, one summary affirmance, and one nonprecedential order. Of the precedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a veterans case. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in a veterans case, and one comes in a trade case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance and dismissal.

Next week the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in an en banc patent case, EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC. In this case, the court will consider whether a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses resulted in an artificially inflated damages award. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in a patent cases, while one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court scheduled oral argument in one of the court’s two en banc cases. As for pending petitions for en banc rehearing, an amicus brief was filed in support of a petition raising a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements, and the court denied a pro se litigant’s petition. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States, a government contract case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss HDCC’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. HDCC alleged that the government owed it an “equitable adjustment for various delays and increased costs” during its contract performance, and that HDCC “experienced excusable delays due to government changes and additions to the contact work relating to the retaining wall construction.” In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Dyk and Clevenger, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of HDCC’s claim regarding excusable delay related to a retaining wall; reversed the lower court’s dismissal with respect to government delays for delivery of rights of way, utility relocation, and a repayment claim; and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and five nonprecedential orders. Of the precedential opinions, both come in patent cases on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, one comes in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the third comes in a takings case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, two deny petitions and the other three dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and first two orders and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a piece covering how two senators recently “introduced the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act of 2025, which would restore patent owners’ right to the rebuttable presumption that a court will issue an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement”;
• a blog post discussing how, in “a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s denial of a former patent examiner’s application to register as a patent practitioner”;
• a report explaining how recently “Halo Electronics’ nearly two-decades-old dispute with a rival completed its fifth trip to the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article reporting how the Trump administration is going to “rescind the Biden Justice Department’s (DOJ) plan to bail out pharmaceutical giant Moderna to the tune of up to $3 billion for alleged patent infringement.”

Late Friday, the Federal circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case without prejudice. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in an employment case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition, one dismisses an appeal, and one remands an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders denying the petition and dismissing the appeal and a link to the order remanding the case.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 13 panels to consider 62 cases. Of the 62 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 45 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases will be presented to the en banc court after the court granted en banc rehearing. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases that attracted amicus briefs.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in a government contract case on appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the District of Nevada, while the other comes in a case on appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Of the nonprecedential orders, two transfer cases and the other remands a case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders and a link to the remand.