FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that claims of a patent asserted by US Synthetic Corp. are patent ineligible and that certain intervening companies, who defend the ITC’s judgment in this appeal, failed to prove lack of enablement of those claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the part of the judgment related to eligibility, affirmed the part of the judgment related to enablement, and remanded the case to the ITC. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a pro se veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.   

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in veterans cases, one comes in a case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.  

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article predicting that Howard Lutnick will “soon be confirmed by the Senate to be the next Secretary of Commerce”;
• a piece discussing how several companies filed an amicus brief challenging jury instructions in a Texas case, telling the Federal Circuit the instructions “‘lower the standard for patent eligibility’”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit “has reversed a controversial . . . decision that had invalidated composition of matter claims as abstract ideas”; and
• a report covering how “MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel’s January ruling that revived a patent for Novartis AG’s blockbuster heart-disease drug Entresto.”

This morning on its website the Federal Circuit released only one nonprecedential order dismissing a case. Here is a link to it.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the Southern District of California. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing “the interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”;
• a report covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case; and
• a piece reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Farrington v. Department of Transportation, an employment law case on appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. There, the Board determined that Farrington was not subject to whistleblower protections under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Judges Lourie, Mayer, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.