FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Last week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judges Dyk, Schall, and Prost 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 we highlight:

• an article reporting how Judge Newman “petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift her suspension from hearing new cases,” which has “lasted nearly two years”;
• a blog post analyzing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an interesting question relating to damages calculation”;
• a blog post discussing how the Supreme Court’s recent denial of a petition “leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that [published] U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review . . . validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act . . . statute; and
• an article suggesting the Patent and Trademark Office “has taken numerous notable steps” related to patent subject matter eligibility and that “these developments suggest a recalibration of the USPTO’s Section 101 approach, particularly for AI-related applications.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Intel Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Intel petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Patent Trademark Office’s denial of its request for institution of inter partes review. In a per curiam order, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

The Federal Circuit did not release any new opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a pro se case raising a question related to access to the lower court’s electronic filing system. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit announced that it will close at 2:00 p.m. Eastern today due to inclement weather. Here is the full text of the announcement.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders granting motions to withdraw appeals. The first opinion comes in an appeal of a dismissal of a patent infringement case for lack of constitutional standing. The second comes in a pro se appeal of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims. The third comes in an appeal of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.