FedCircuitBlog

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. 

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

• a blog post explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made”;
• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation”;
• a blog post highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One denies a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Western District of Texas, one grants a petition to remand a case to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the District of Maryland, one grants summary affirmance in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims, one transfers a case appealed from the District of New Mexico to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and, lastly, one transfers a case appealed from the Central District of California to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Here are the introductions to the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one petition for initial en banc hearing was granted in a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board raising questions related to the President’s Article II removal power. Three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to burden of proving unpatentability in inter partes review proceedings, obviousness, enablement, and written description. One new response brief was filed in a case raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising a question related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing how the “Federal Circuit on Wednesday agreed to conduct en banc review over the firing of two immigration judges”;
•  an article similarly outlining how the Federal Circuit “granted two former Justice Department employees’ request to expedite the appeal of their 2025 firings”;
• a blog post examining how, “in response to the May 12 opposition brief of . . . Chief Judge Kimberly Moore,” the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for certiorari”; and
• an article also discussing how the Supreme Court “declined . . . to hear a bid by the nation’s oldest federal judge, 98-year-old Pauline Newman, to overturn her suspension from duties.”

This morning the Federal Circuit granted a petition for en banc initial hearing in Jackler v. Department of Justice to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The question presented is: “Whether the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedural and substantive protections for federal workers conflict with the President’s Article II removal power.” Here is the full text of this morning’s order. We will report more on this case later.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order and three nonprecedential opinions. The order grants a petition for initial hearing en banc in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed form the District of New Jersey, one comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the order and opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; one comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and one comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois, and the other comes in response to a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released one nonprecedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a jury finding of misappropriation of trade secrets, counterfeiting, breach of contract, and patent invalidity. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a companion case to the precedential opinion and discusses costs and attorneys’ fees. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders granting motions to withdraw appeals. The first opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal of a patent infringement case for lack of constitutional standing. The second comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.