FedCircuitBlog

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion and four nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and includes a dissenting opinion by Judge Dyk. Two of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court; and the final nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to yesterday’s dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, the respondent’s merits brief was filed. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a case addressing sanctions and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight seven recent opinions, one recent order, and two newly-identified cases. 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 describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists”;
• a blog post characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight”;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies”; and
• a blog post emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed a judgment of the Northern District of California, which rejected challenges to instructions issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review proceedings. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update five amicus briefs were filed that support neither party. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in a patent case, a takings case, and a case addressing use of Federal Circuit Rule 36. In addition, a waiver of the right to respond a petition was filed in a pro se case, a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case, and the Supreme Court denied a petition in another patent case. 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 suggesting the “Federal Circuit has become, in the space of two years, one of the most consensus-oriented appellate courts in the federal system”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision seemed to deal with a “narrow administrative law issue,” but the “effect of the decision is far broader”;
• an article discussing how USPTO Director John Squires “issued numerous orders . . . holding that patent challenges should not move forward” because the challengers took “inconsistent claim construction positions” in court and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
• an article reporting how “more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits” since the Supreme Court “declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending cases, since our last update the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case; a petitioner filed its opening merits brief in a patent case; and an amicus brief supporting the petitioner was filed in the same patent case. As for pending petitions, since our last update one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a pro se case; a brief in opposition to a petition was filed in a patent case; a reply brief in support of a petition was filed in a patent case; six amicus briefs supporting the petitioner were filed in a takings case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in two patent cases and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Two of the opinions come in appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving the same parties; the other two opinions come in pro se appeals of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board also involving the same parties. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

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

• an article reporting how “President Donald Trump . . . tapped one of his White House lawyers to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that could prove pivotal in deciding tariff refunds if the Supreme Court strikes down some of the president’s duties”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court put President Trump’s tariff case “on a fast track at the administration’s urging” but doesn’t “seem in a rush to rule on the president’s signature economic program”;
• an article observing how, in late 2025, “the USPTO announced the creation” of a working group related to standard essential patents in “the latest effort of the USPTO to strengthen the ability of patent holders . . . to enforce their patent rights, including through injunctive relief”; and
• an article describing how “Apple Inc. couldn’t convince the Federal Circuit to block the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from implementing changes that make it harder to challenge the validity of patents.”