FedCircuitBlog

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.

Last month, the Federal Circuit released its opinion in Lesko v. United States, an en banc case addressing federal employment law. In it, the Federal Circuit reviewed a federal employee’s argument that a writing requirement for overtime approval was not a valid exercise of the Office of Personnel Management’s rulemaking authority. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, the en banc court concluded that the writing requirement was a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority. Judge Stoll and three other judges dissented. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a patent infringement case, answering the question whether an accused product infringes when it does not perform claim limitations in an allegedly required sequence. Both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, one of which is a pro se appeal. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there has been no new activity at the Supreme Court in the two pending cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for petitions, new petitions were filed in a takings case, a case addressing sanctions, and a pro se case. The Supreme Court also denied petitions in a veterans case, a case addressing the Quiet Title Act, and four pro se cases. Here are the details.

As we reported earlier this week, three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in February attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ligado Networks LLC v. United States, a takings case. In it, the United States appeals a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, arguing it erred by exercising jurisdiction over the case and treating a license from the Federal Communications Commission as property under the takings clause. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. One of the opinions comes in a case involving claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation; the other comes in an appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The order remands a patent case back to a district court based on a district court’s indication it would vacate its patent ineligibility determinations. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed, raising a question related to the court’s ability to decide the adequacy of written description without deferring to a jury’s verdict; one new amicus brief was filed in support of a petition that raised a question related to venue; and, finally, the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing one in a pro se case and the other that raised questions related to what qualifies as prior art and the Administrative Procedure Act. Here are the details.  

Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in February attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Doughtery Electric, Inc. v. United States, a tax case. In it, Dougherty Electric appeals the dismissal by the Court of Federal Claims of a refund suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and an errata. One of the opinions comes in another appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board; the other comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Both orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. One of the petitions sought to order the Merit Systems Protection Board to order discovery and sanction an agency. The other petition sought to order the Patent and Trademark Office to vacate a denial of its petition for inter partes review. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders along with a link to the errata.