Todd M. Hughes
How Judge Hughes rules, drawn from 51 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hughes
Todd Michael Hughes is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hughes received a commission on September 24, 2013.
Judge Hughes's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hughes's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Hughes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Zeroclick v. Apple, he held that Apple had offered no evidence to overcome the presumption against construing the disputed limitations as means-plus-function terms, and vacated the district court's judgment.
“Apple argued that the limita- tions must be construed under § 112, ¶ 6, but provided no evidentiary support for that position. Accordingly, Apple failed to carry its burden, and the presumption against the application of § 112, ¶ 6 to the disputed limitations remained unrebutted.”
In Nestlé USA v. Steuben Foods, Hughes held that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the term 'aseptic' after Steuben had a full and fair chance to litigate its construction in an earlier appeal involving a related patent.
“It follows, therefore, that collateral estoppel protects Nestlé and obviates the need to revisit an issue that was already resolved against Steuben Foods.”
Procedural preferences
In O.F. Mossberg & Sons v. Timney Triggers, Hughes's opinion affirmed denial of patent-case attorney fees after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Neither the dismissal nor an earlier stay supplied the final judicial decision needed to make the defendant a prevailing party under Section 285.
“A stay, standing alone, is simply not a final court decision capable of establishing the judicial imprimatur re- quired for a litigant to emerge as the prevailing party un- der § 285.”
In Bozeman v. McDonald, Hughes held that citing evidence already in the record to support a preserved benefits claim was not a new legal argument barred by issue exhaustion; the panel vacated and remanded.
“The mere citation of evidence already contained in the record to further support that claim is not a new legal argument for purposes of issue exhaustion.”
Cautions
In United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, Hughes reversed a patent-eligibility judgment because routine banking data collection and analysis did not become patent eligible merely by using a generic handheld device.
“The addition of a handheld mobile device to carry out these routine steps does not make the claim any less ab- stract.”
In Kays v. McDonald, Hughes held that evidence of a civilian helicopter crash alone did not substantiate Kays's claimed PTSD stressor; the regulation required credible evidence that Kays had participated in the search and rescue activities he described.
“Accordingly, § 3.304(f) required Mr. Kays to submit credible evidence that he was involved in search and rescue activities and not simply that a civilian helicopter crash occurred.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the Court of Federal Claims. AFFIRMED”
“For the reasons set forth above, the petition for review is denied. PETITION DENIED”
“Because the principles of issue exhaustion support the Veterans Court’s determina- tion, we affirm.”
“Accordingly, because the Veterans Court applied the proper standard of review, and because § 3.304(f) requires credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred as claimed by the veteran, we affirm. AFFIRMED”
“Because the implicit denial rule applies to both formal and informal claims, and its use does not violate the notice provision of the VA’s due process regulation, the judgment of the Veterans Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED”
“Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Veterans Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED”
“Because it did not misinterpret 38 C.F.R. § 3.318, the judgment of the Vet- erans Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED”
“Because the VA’s 1993 decision exhausted any duty it had to reconsider Mr. Blubaugh’s claim under § 3.156(c) in view of his DA Form 20, the judgment of the Veterans Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED”
“Accordingly, we reverse the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED”
“Therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED”
“For the reasons above, we affirm the Board’s dismis- sal of Mr. Williams’s and Mr. Winns’s cases for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED”
“We conclude that the revocation of the extension offer by the FDIC did not constitute a ‘removal’ under § 7512. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Reddick’s appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. DISMISSED”
Draft for Judge Hughes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hughes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hughes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace