FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, eleven nonprecedential orders, and a Rule 36 judgment. One of the opinions comes in a pro se case in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the other comes in an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Six of the orders deny petitions for writs of mandamus. Two of these denials come in patent cases. Another four orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders other than the dismissals, along with links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. With respect to pending petitions, since our last update new petitions were filed in a takings case and in two pro se cases; waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two patent cases and three pro se cases; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and a Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by a district court. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgment and yesterday’s dismissal.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential opinions comes in an appeal in a patent case decided by the Southern District of Texas, and the other is an appeal in a trade case decided by the Court of International Trade. Both nonprecedential opinions come in pro se cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and a Rule 36 judgment. Two of the opinions come in pro se cases, and the other is a revised opinion in a patent case. The original opinion issued in March. The revisions appear to add the identification of a patent claim that the original opinion did not identify. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions, two nonprecedential orders, and two Rule 36 judgments. All of the opinions are per curiam and come in pro se cases, two of which are trademark cases. The orders are both dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and Rule 36 judgments.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit issued two en banc opinions, one in a trade case, V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, and another in a government contract case, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States. Additionally, two petitions for en banc rehearing were filed in patent cases. One raises questions related to identification of real parties in interest in inter partes review proceedings. The other raises questions related to claim construction. Finally, a response was filed in opposition to a petition in another patent case raising questions related to estoppel and inter partes review. Here are the details.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. This week (and next, as it turns out), court will convene 9 panels to consider 49 cases. Of the 49 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 33 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, one case scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. That case is an en banc employment law case. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Only one case scheduled for oral argument in September attracted an amicus brief. That case is an employment law case, Lesko v United States. It raises questions concerning how “officially ordered or approved” in 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a) should be interpreted after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and ultimately whether the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to adopt a requirement that any overtime pay be authorized in writing. After a panel of the court heard oral argument, the court voted sua sponte for en banc consideration. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released an en banc precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The en banc opinion addresses the law governing standing to file a bid protest in a government contract dispute. Judge Hughes authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and six other judges. Notably, Judge Hughes authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by three other judges. The nonprecedential opinions come in two patent cases, one appealed from a district court and one from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the dismissal.