Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting seven Federal Circuit decisions from August, which “provided some helpful clarity on [obviousness-type double patenting], written description, indefiniteness, and the support needed for an exceptional case finding”;
- an article discussing how the Supreme Court has “denied yet another petition for writ of certiorari seeking clarity on the patent eligibility of claims covering improvements to computer technologies under 35 U.S.C. § 101”; and
- a blog post discussing a recent en banc petition the author says “highlights the tension between judicial efficiency and the court’s constitutional duty to independently review agency actions.”
Denise De Mory and Li Guo authored an article for Law360 highlighting seven Federal Circuit decisions from August, which “provided some helpful clarity on [obviousness-type double patenting], written description, indefiniteness, and the support needed for an exceptional case finding.” The authors suggest these decisions offer insights into “improved practices for both petitioners and patent owners” involved in inter partes review proceedings.
Steve Brachmann submitted an article to IP Watchdog discussing how the Supreme Court has “denied yet another petition for writ of certiorari seeking clarity on the patent eligibility of claims covering improvements to computer technologies under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Brachmann explains how in Plotagraph, Inc. v. Lightricks, Ltd., Plotagraph “argued against both the abstract idea determination under Federal Circuit case law on technological improvements to computer animations, as well as the district court’s early determination of validity at the motion to dismiss stage.” As explained by Brachmann, the Court’s denial “comes one week after it denied cert to Eolas Technologies in a separate call for clarity on Section 101 patent eligibility in a case involving patent claims improving the online distribution of hypermedia.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO discussing a recent en banc petition he says “highlights the tension between judicial efficiency and the court’s constitutional duty to independently review agency actions.” According to Crouch, while “dozens of parties have challenged the Federal Circuit’s ongoing habit of regularly issuing a large number of no-opinion judgments,” Converter Manufacturing, LLC v. Tekni-Plex, Inc. “raises the issue in a new way.” He thinks the “Federal Circuit’s continued use of Rule 36 affirmances in appeals from USPTO decisions is increasingly difficult to justify in light of Loper Bright.”