FedCircuitBlog

Today the Federal Circuit announced it will sit in Chicago as part of its 2026 October section. Here is the full text of the announcement.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order vacating a judgment and remanding a case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case. This morning, the court issued three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. One of the precedential opinions comes in a correction of military records case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; one comes in a copyright case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Of the nonprecedential opinions, ones comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and two come in patent cases appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Today’s order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and yesterday’s order as well as a link to the dismissal.

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, two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order denies a petition for writ of mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one amicus brief was filed in the only pending en banc case, which raises questions related to the President’s removal powers. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc review raising a question related the Hatch-Waxman Act. Here are the details. 

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Loomis v. Collins, a pro se veterans case we have been tracking because the court appointed counsel as amicus curiae. In this case, Loomis appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The case presents questions related to educational assistance benefits and the validity of a regulation issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Chief Judge Moore, Judge Cunningham, and Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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.