FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and two Rule 36 judgments. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and 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 links to the judgments and dismissal.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued an order in Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, a trade case we have been following because it attracted two amicus briefs. Before the Court reached a decision, the United States voluntarily moved to remand the case. In a per curiam order, Judges Taranto, Bryson, and Cunningham granted the motion and remanded the case to the Court of International Trade. Here is a summary of the order.

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

• an article arguing a delay in the Supreme Court’s decision in President Trump’s tariffs case is “a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex”;
• an article suggesting the “Supreme Court fight over how branded drugs’ makers must plead induced infringement in ‘skinny-label’ patent suits could both reshape the pharmaceutical industry’s financial and legal calculus and influence how soon lower-cost generics reach patients”;
• an article arguing “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did nearly everything in its power to remove that obstacle and throw open the doors to AI patents” but the federal courts “may not be on the same page”; and
• a blog post highlighting remarks of USPTO Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart at the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions, four nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a design patent case and includes a dissent by Chief Judge Moore. The other two opinions come in related matters, trade cases challenging decisions of the Court of International Trade. As for the nonprecedential orders, one grants a motion for remand while the others are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order granting remand, along with links the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

In December, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam opinion in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of anticipation of asserted claims. A panel of the court consisting of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Chen affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 58 cases. Of the 58 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 43. 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. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we’ve been reporting, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in February attracted amicus briefs. The third of these cases is Bee v. United States. In this case, William Bee appeals the denial of his request to have his military records reflect medical retirement rather than voluntary separation. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. One of the opinions comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. One of the orders grants a motion for summary affirmance; the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the first order and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article considering whether the Supreme Court will rule that “President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs are illegal”;
• an article providing a “statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2025”;
• a blog post discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “designated four recent discretionary-denial rulings as precedential and nine more as informative, formalizing a developing framework for how and when the Office will exercise discretion to institute [American Invents Act] trials;” and
• a blog post analyzing how inter partes review “institution rates under Director John Squires have begun to climb.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case a petition for a writ of mandamus presented a question whether venue is proper when a patent owner fails to establish that every step of a patented method was performed in a judicial district. In a order authored per curiam, Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes denied the petition. Here is a summary of the order.