Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
- an article reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures”; and
- an article highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing a case set for argument this week in which the “Federal Circuit is set to decide an important issue regarding the scope of prior art that can be considered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.” As Crouch explains, in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., the court will address “secret springing prior art” and “whether section 102(a)(2) prior art qualifies for use in an IPR proceeding because those applications were not yet publicly accessible until after the priority date of the challenged patent.” We have been following this case because it attracted several amicus briefs.
Ryan Davis and Dani Kass sumbitted an article to Law 360 reporting how the Supreme Court recently “turned down several petitions seeking review of decisions in patent cases, including appeals dealing with double patenting, patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board procedures.” On this blog we keep track of all of the petitions at the Supreme Court seeking review of Federal Circuit decisions.
Tristan Navera wrote an article for Bloomberg Law highlighting a recent Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a case because the lower court “wrongly dismissed” a claim “seeking a refund on tax penalties.” According to Navera, in Vensure HR Inc. v. United States the Federal Circuit determined that “the Court of Federal Claims wrongly dismissed Vensure HR Inc.’s suit seeking a refund on tax penalties,” and that they were “‘unaware of any relevant statutory provision that establishes requirements for when, where, and how to file a power of attorney with the IRS.’”