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 impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
- a blog post highlighting the “Supreme Court’s [n]on-[e]ngagement with the Federal Circuit” in Amgen v. Sanofi; and
- an article analyzing two recent appeals concerning the constitutionality of state laws “that target companies that generate revenue through patent licensing and infringement litigation rather than producing protected inventions.”
Thomas Hedemann authored an article for Reuters discussing the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. He notes the “immediate impact of the Court’s holding is to remove the uncertainty created when it granted Amgen’s petition over the Solicitor General’s recommendation.” Going forward, he highlights how the “holding may also provide innovators with more freedom to operate in the face of overly broad genus claims.” Hedemann highlighted how, in “litigation, the opinion is already being cited, and may lead to more enablement challenges in technological fields other than life sciences where such challenges have not been particularly prevalent.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO highlighting the “Supreme Court’s [n]on-[e]ngagement with the Federal Circuit” in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. He notes how “the Court neither cited nor discussed any Federal Circuit . . . decision outside of case-specific historical documents.” According to Crouch, while “the Supreme Court’s decision . . . seems to generally affirm the current approach of the Federal Circuit to enablement, it lacks any depth of engagement with the nuanced analysis often conducted by the Federal Circuit.” He notes the Supreme Court also disregarded “the jury’s verdict in the original Amgen trial, reflecting a potential underappreciation of the complexities of patent law and the factual determinations involved.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law analyzing two recent appeals that he says would require the Federal Circuit “to squarely address for the first time the constitutionality of state laws that target companies that generate revenue through patent licensing and infringement litigation rather than producing the protected inventions—often called non-practicing entities.” Shapiro notes how a district court judge wrote that one of the cases “pits the federal government’s exclusive right to issue and regulate patent protections against Idaho’s police power to protect its businesses from harassment.”