2026 Federal Circuit Prededential Decisions

Civil Procedure - Motion to Dismiss (Pleading Standards)

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Court of Federal Claims improperly dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) by relying on materials outside the pleadings and by failing to accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true when assessing plausibility.

Blurb:

In Lesko v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) by relying on evidence outside the pleadings without converting the motion to one for summary judgment and by failing to construe the complaint’s factual allegations in the plaintiff’s favor. The court emphasized that, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff need only plausibly allege entitlement to relief, and courts must limit their analysis to the pleadings and incorporated materials unless proper procedural safeguards are followed.

Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation

Most Salient Issue: The proper interpretation of the term “case” in 38 U.S.C. § 5904©(1) for determining when an attorney is entitled to fees in veterans benefits proceedings—specifically, whether separate claims fall within the same “case” based on their connection to a notice of disagreement (NOD).

In Holstein v. Collins, the Federal Circuit held that, under 38 U.S.C. § 5904©(1), an attorney may recover fees only for work performed in the same “case” as a qualifying notice of disagreement, where “case” is defined by the claims reasonably raised by the evidence underlying that NOD. The court reaffirmed that a “case” is not expanded to include all later-filed claims, but instead requires a factual or evidentiary connection between the claims; because the veteran’s PTSD claim was not raised by the evidence associated with the earlier NOD regarding a neck injury, it was not part of the same case, and attorney’s fees were unavailable.

Patent Law - Claim Construction

Most Salient Issue: Whether a method claim requires that its steps be performed in a particular order based on the claim language, grammar, and logic—i.e., whether there is an implicit ordering requirement.

In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that method claim steps must be performed in a specific order when the claim language, grammar, or logic creates a dependency between steps, even if no explicit sequencing language is used. The court explained that where a later step refers to the result of an earlier step—such as referencing a “requested” object that presupposes receipt of a request—the steps must be performed in sequence. Because the accused system did not perform the claimed steps in the required order, the court affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement.

Administrative Law - Agency Jurisdiction

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board has jurisdiction under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) to hear claims involving alleged violations of veterans’ preference rights in the hiring of physicians by the Veterans Health Administration, in light of statutory exemptions in Title 38.

In Conklin v. MSPB, the Federal Circuit held that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks jurisdiction under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act to review alleged violations of veterans’ preference rights in the hiring of physicians by the Veterans Health Administration. Relying on its prior decision in Scarnati, the court concluded that 38 U.S.C. § 7403 exempts physician appointments from civil service requirements, including the VEOA’s enforcement mechanism, and that § 7403(f) does not extend veterans’ preference protections to physician positions. Accordingly, applicants for such positions cannot invoke the VEOA to challenge hiring decisions before the Board.

Patent Law - Patent Eligibility

Most Salient Issue: Whether the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101—specifically, whether claims reciting asynchronous playback of web conferencing data streams constitute an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

In US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to enabling asynchronous review of web conferencing presentations are patent-ineligible under § 101 because they recite an abstract idea using result-oriented functional language without specifying a technological implementation. Applying the Alice framework, the court found the claims merely describe the concept of asynchronous playback and rely on conventional components—such as client applications, data streams, and time-scale modification techniques—without an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The court further held that dismissal at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage was appropriate where no factual allegations precluded resolving eligibility as a matter of law.

Patent Law - Expert Testimony Admissibility

Most Salient Issue: Whether the district court improperly excluded expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by treating disagreements over the application of a claim construction as admissibility issues rather than factual disputes for the jury.

In Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abuses its discretion by excluding expert testimony where the expert applies the court’s claim construction but reaches conclusions the opposing party disputes. The court clarified that disagreements over how a properly construed claim applies to accused products present factual issues for the jury, not grounds for exclusion under Daubert. Because the expert’s testimony did not contradict the court’s construction but instead reflected a contested application of it, and because the exclusion of that testimony led to an improper grant of judgment as a matter of law, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Administrative Law - Arbitrary and Capricious Review

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Department of Veterans Affairs acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act in denying a petition for rulemaking to expand the definition of “traumatic injury” under the TSGLI program.

In McKinney v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Circuit held that the VA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a veteran’s petition for rulemaking seeking to expand the definition of “traumatic injury” to include illnesses or diseases resulting from explosive ordnance exposure. The court concluded that the VA engaged in reasoned decisionmaking by considering the medical evidence, explaining the lack of a sufficiently direct causal relationship between traumatic injury and later-developing conditions, and responding to the petitioner’s arguments. Because the agency’s decision was supported by the administrative record and reflected a rational basis, the court affirmed the denial.

Administrative Law - MSPB Jurisdiction

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board properly dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he was subjected to an adverse action appealable to the Board.

In Young v. MSPB, the Federal Circuit held that the Merit Systems Protection Board properly dismissed the appellant’s case for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that he experienced an appealable adverse action. The court reiterated that an appellant bears the burden of establishing Board jurisdiction by alleging facts which, if proven, would demonstrate entitlement to relief under a statute or regulation granting appeal rights. Because the appellant’s allegations did not rise to the level of a qualifying adverse action, the Board lacked jurisdiction, and dismissal was affirmed.

Administrative Law - Agency Jurisdiction

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a DEA Senior Executive Service (SES) employee challenging an alleged involuntary retirement, in light of statutory provisions assigning review procedures to the Attorney General.

In Palmeri v. MSPB, the Federal Circuit held that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks jurisdiction over adverse action appeals brought by DEA Senior Executive Service employees because Congress created a separate statutory scheme requiring any hearing or appeal to be conducted under procedures established by the Attorney General. The court emphasized that the relevant statutes unambiguously exclude DEA SES employees from the Board’s jurisdiction and instead contemplate an alternative review mechanism—even though no such regulations have been promulgated. The court further held that the absence of regulations does not expand the Board’s jurisdiction, and any constitutional or procedural claims must be pursued in a different forum.

International Trade Law - Customs Valuation

Most Salient Issue: Whether Customs properly applied “transaction value” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1), specifically whether sales involving goods shipped from Canada to the United States qualify as sales “for exportation to the United States,” even if characterized as domestic transactions.

In Midwest-CBK, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that sales may qualify as sales “for exportation to the United States” under 19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)(1) even if they are structured as domestic transactions, so long as the factual reality of the transactions shows that the goods were destined for export to the United States at the time of sale. The court rejected the argument that transaction value requires an international sale or a sale occurring abroad, emphasizing that the statute focuses on the nature of the transaction rather than its formal designation. Applying a fact-specific inquiry, the court affirmed that the subject sales—where goods were ordered by U.S. customers and shipped from Canada to the United States—qualified for transaction value appraisal.

Patent Law - Design Patent Anticipation

Most Salient Issue: Whether a prior art reference anticipates a claimed design under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on the overall visual impression created by the design.

In Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that a prior art reference anticipates a claimed design if it creates the same overall visual impression as the claimed design in the eyes of an ordinary observer. The court emphasized that design patent anticipation does not require identical features in isolation but instead focuses on the design as a whole. Applying this standard, the court affirmed that the asserted design patents were anticipated because the prior art disclosed substantially the same visual appearance, notwithstanding minor differences in specific elements.

Administrative Law - Prevailing Party Status

Most Salient Issue: Whether a party qualifies as a “prevailing party” for purposes of recovering attorneys’ fees when it obtains a merits decision in its favor, but the case becomes moot on appeal due to the opposing party’s voluntary provision of relief.

In Neal v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Circuit held that a litigant is a prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees where she obtains a merits decision granting relief that materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, even if the case becomes moot on appeal due to the agency’s voluntary compliance. The court emphasized that prevailing party status attaches upon a conclusive merits determination with judicial imprimatur, and is not negated by subsequent mootness, distinguishing cases involving voluntary cessation without a prior merits judgment.

Patent Law - Inequitable Conduct

Most Salient Issue: Whether summary judgment of inequitable conduct (and Walker Process fraud) is appropriate where there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding intent to deceive the PTO and materiality of withheld prior art.

In Global Tubing LLC v. Tenaris Coiled Tubes LLC, the Federal Circuit held that summary judgment of inequitable conduct is improper where genuine disputes of material fact exist as to both the specific intent to deceive the Patent and Trademark Office and the materiality of withheld prior art. The court emphasized that inequitable conduct requires clear and convincing evidence of deliberate intent to deceive, which must be the single most reasonable inference from the record, and that materiality turns on whether the PTO would have allowed the claims but for the omission. Because competing inferences could be drawn from the evidence regarding both intent and whether the undisclosed documents were merely cumulative, the court vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation

Most Salient Issue: Whether, under 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2), a drawback claim is automatically deemed liquidated after one year under subsection (A), or whether subsection (B) governs when underlying import entries are not yet final.

In Performance Additives, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)(2)(B) displaces subsection (A)’s automatic one-year deemed liquidation rule when the statutory conditions of subsection (B) are present—specifically, when the underlying import entries have not yet become final. The court emphasized that the statute creates mutually exclusive pathways for deemed liquidation, and that the “except as provided” clause requires courts to apply subsection (B) in such circumstances. Accordingly, a drawback claim is not deemed liquidated after one year under subsection (A) when the import entries remain non-final, and Customs may lawfully liquidate the claim thereafter.

Patent Law - Patent Eligibility (§ 101)

Most Salient Issue: Whether genetically engineered host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid sequences are patent-ineligible as directed to a natural phenomenon under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In Regenxbio Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to genetically engineered host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid sequences are not directed to a natural phenomenon and are therefore patent-eligible under § 101. The court emphasized that the claimed compositions were man-made and possessed characteristics distinct from anything occurring in nature, aligning the case with Chakrabarty rather than Funk Brothers or Myriad. The court further explained that combining natural components into a non-natural, engineered structure with potential utility can satisfy Step One of the Alice/Mayo framework, and thus reversed the district court’s summary judgment of ineligibility.

Patent Law - Collateral Estoppel

Most Salient Issue: Whether a party is collaterally estopped from relitigating patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on a prior judgment involving the same patents and materially identical claims.

In Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., the Federal Circuit held that collateral estoppel can bar a patentee from relitigating § 101 patent eligibility where a prior final judgment has already determined that materially identical claims of the same patents are ineligible. The court emphasized that issue preclusion applies when the identical issue was previously litigated and necessary to the judgment, and that minor differences in claim language or procedural posture do not avoid preclusion if they do not materially alter the eligibility analysis. Accordingly, the court affirmed dismissal of the patentee’s claims based on the preclusive effect of the earlier eligibility ruling.

Patent Law - Obviousness

Most Salient Issue: Whether the district court properly denied JMOL of obviousness where substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that a skilled artisan lacked motivation to combine prior art references.

In Willis Electric Co. v. Polygroup Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that the district court properly denied judgment as a matter of law on obviousness because substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the prior art. The court emphasized that motivation to combine is a factual question, and on JMOL review, courts must defer to the jury’s presumed factual findings if supported by substantial evidence, rather than reweigh competing expert testimony. Because the record included evidence of design challenges, teachings away, and the need for significant modifications to the prior art, the jury could reasonably conclude that the claimed invention was nonobvious.

Administrative Law - Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking

Most Salient Issue: Whether the USPTO Director’s instructions governing discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions constitute legislative rules requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In Apple Inc. v. Squires, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO Director’s instructions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board regarding discretionary denial of IPR petitions (including NHK–Fintiv guidance) are “general statements of policy” exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. The court emphasized that the instructions do not bind the agency with the force of law but instead guide the Director’s exercise of statutorily committed discretion over whether to institute IPR proceedings—an area where parties have no entitlement to relief. Because the guidance preserves agency discretion and does not alter legal rights or obligations, it falls within § 553(b)’s exception and need not undergo formal rulemaking.

Civil Procedure - Transfer of Venue (§ 1404(a))

Most Salient Issue: Whether a district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by misweighing the convenience factors.

In Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in denying transfer under § 1404(a) by improperly weighing the relevant convenience factors, including the location of witnesses, sources of proof, and the locus of operative facts. The court reiterated that transfer is warranted when the transferee forum is clearly more convenient, and emphasized that speculative or generalized connections to the chosen forum cannot outweigh concrete ties to a more appropriate venue. Because the district court gave undue weight to irrelevant considerations and minimized significant convenience factors favoring transfer, the Federal Circuit granted mandamus and directed transfer of the case.

Patent Law - Patent Misuse / Antitrust Tying

Most Salient Issue: Whether a patentee can avoid antitrust liability for tying by invoking the “nonstaple article” protection of 35 U.S.C. § 271(d), or whether substantial evidence supports a jury finding that the tied product has substantial non-infringing uses (i.e., is a staple good).

In Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., the Federal Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the patentee’s products were staple goods with substantial non-infringing uses, thereby precluding reliance on the patent misuse safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(d) and supporting liability for unlawful tying under the Sherman Act. The court emphasized that whether a product has substantial non-infringing uses is a fact question, and that courts must defer to the jury’s reasonable inferences and credibility determinations on JMOL review. Because the record showed actual, recurring, and commercially meaningful non-infringing uses, the patentee could not lawfully condition patent licenses on purchase of those products, and its conduct was not immunized by patent law or the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Administrative Law - Evidentiary Standard for Causation

Most Salient Issue: Whether a special master applied an improper evidentiary standard for proving causation-in-fact under the Vaccine Act by requiring medical literature explicitly linking a vaccine to an injury.

In Gamboa-Avila v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, the Federal Circuit held that a special master does not violate the Vaccine Act’s causation standard under Althen by considering the absence of supporting medical literature when evaluating the reliability of a claimant’s causation theory, so long as such literature is not treated as a mandatory requirement. The court explained that while claimants may rely on circumstantial evidence to establish causation-in-fact, special masters are entitled to weigh scientific reliability and may discount expert theories lacking evidentiary support. Because the special master here relied on multiple deficiencies in the proposed mechanism—not merely the absence of literature—the court affirmed the denial of compensation.

Patent Law - Patent Eligibility (§ 101)

Most Salient Issue: Whether the asserted patent claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice Step One and therefore patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea under Alice Step One because they merely recited the use of generic computer functionality to organize and deliver content, rather than a specific technological improvement to computer or network capabilities. The court emphasized that claim terms suggesting technical detail—such as “discrete low level rendering command”—did not meaningfully limit the claims where, in substance, they described broad, device-tailored rendering instructions without a concrete technological advance. Because the claims fell on the “abstract idea” side of the court’s established § 101 divide, they were ineligible absent an inventive concept.

Administrative Law - Agency Corrective Action Authority

Most Salient Issue: Whether a federal agency may unilaterally take corrective action in a bid protest—by terminating awards and issuing new decisions—without seeking a voluntary remand from the court.

In Syneren Technologies Corp. v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that agencies possess inherent authority to reconsider procurement decisions and may unilaterally take corrective action during litigation—including terminating awarded contracts and issuing new awards—without first seeking a voluntary remand from the court. The court emphasized that this authority is subject to limitations (e.g., consistency with statute, reasonable timing, and non-arbitrary conduct), but no statute or regulation requires agencies to obtain court permission before acting. Because the agency canceled its prior awards, reevaluated proposals, and issued a new decision in a manner that was rational and procedurally sound, the court affirmed the denial of the bid protest.

Administrative Law - Statutory Interpretation

Most Salient Issue: Whether a claimant “submits” evidence “with” a Notice of Disagreement under 38 U.S.C. § 7113©(2) by referencing evidence previously provided to the Board, or must physically re-submit the evidence.

In Cash v. Collins, the Federal Circuit held that a claimant satisfies the requirement to submit evidence “with” a Notice of Disagreement under 38 U.S.C. § 7113©(2) by clearly and timely referencing evidence already in the Board’s possession, and need not physically re-submit the same materials. The court reasoned that incorporating prior submissions by reference constitutes “submission” under the statute, particularly where the evidence was already before the agency prior to the filing deadline and the claimant explicitly directed the Board to consider it. Because the Board improperly refused to consider such referenced evidence, the court reversed the Veterans Court’s decision.

Administrative Law - Adequacy of Judicial Review

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Veterans Court erred by failing to address reasonably raised arguments regarding entitlement to an earlier effective date for benefits.

In Hamill v. McDonough, the Federal Circuit held that the Veterans Court must address all material arguments reasonably raised by a veteran when reviewing Board decisions, including arguments bearing on entitlement to an earlier effective date. The court emphasized that meaningful judicial review requires the Veterans Court to consider and respond to such arguments rather than overlook them or dispose of the case on narrower grounds. Because the Veterans Court failed to adequately engage with the veteran’s arguments concerning the proper effective date, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further consideration consistent with its obligation to provide reasoned analysis.

Administrative Law - Tucker Act Jurisdiction

Most Salient Issue: Whether the Restaurant Revitalization Fund statute is “money-mandating” such that it supports Tucker Act jurisdiction for damages claims against the United States.

In 112 Genesee Street, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that the Restaurant Revitalization Fund statute, 15 U.S.C. § 9009c, is money-mandating and therefore supports Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims. The court emphasized that the statute’s repeated use of mandatory “shall” language, its backward-looking compensation formula tied to past pandemic losses, and the absence of a complex, ongoing grant relationship together support the conclusion that Congress created a right to payment enforceable through money damages. Although the statute establishes a grant program, the court explained that not all grant programs are excluded from Tucker Act jurisdiction, particularly where a monetary judgment would adequately compensate for the government’s failure to pay. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the government’s motion to dismiss.

Patent Law - Design Patent Infringement

Most Salient Issue: Whether, in design patent infringement analysis, courts must exclude functional aspects of a claimed design when applying the ordinary observer test, and whether failure to do so improperly expands the scope of the design patent.

In Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co., the Federal Circuit held that design patent infringement must be evaluated based on the ornamental aspects of the claimed design, with functional elements appropriately identified and discounted during claim construction. The court affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement, emphasizing that similarities driven primarily by functional features cannot support a finding of substantial similarity under the ordinary observer test. Because the district court properly separated functional from ornamental elements and concluded that the remaining ornamental features were plainly dissimilar, the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee’s argument that a side-by-side visual comparison alone was sufficient and affirmed the judgment.

Administrative Law - Mootness Doctrine

Most Salient Issue: Whether an appeal is moot when the underlying dispute has already been resolved in a companion case addressing the same legal issues.

In In re United States, the Federal Circuit held that an appeal challenging the disclosure of confidential information was moot because the information had already been publicly released and the same legal issues were resolved on the merits in a companion case. The court rejected application of the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception, emphasizing that the exception does not apply where the same issues have been, or can be, reviewed in another case. Because no effective relief could be granted and the legal questions did not evade review, the court dismissed the appeal as moot.

Administrative Law - Public Access to Judicial Records

Most Salient Issue: Whether the statutory scheme governing confidentiality in trade proceedings abrogates the common law right of public access to judicial records.

In In re United States, the Federal Circuit held that the statutory provisions governing confidentiality in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings do not abrogate the common law right of public access to judicial records. The court further held that the International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically designating all questionnaire responses as confidential is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, which requires case-specific determinations and limits protection to properly designated confidential business information. Applying the collateral order doctrine, the court treated the government’s mandamus petition as an appeal and affirmed the Court of International Trade’s order requiring adherence to statutory confidentiality standards and permitting disclosure of improperly designated information.