Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
- a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
- a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
- a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”
Stephen Schreiner & Gene Quinn co-authored an article for IP Watchdog arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences.” The co-authors noted how, in a 2018 dissent in a Federal Circuit case, Judge Plager explained that the phrase “is a definitional morass” because there “is no single, succinct, usable definition anywhere available.” According to the co-authors, this lack of definition “allows judges on every level to do whatever they want without any structural tether to the law.”
Thomas Cotter penned a blog post for Comparative Patent Remedies analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany.” Cotter described how all of these foreign jurisdictions “apply a simple but-for principle, albeit subject to limitations on damages for harms that are too remotely caused by the infringement.”
Roshan Shrestha and Andrew Alul co-authored a report for Law 360 highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements.” The co-authors suggested the “decision has significant implications for patent claim construction and design-arounds, particularly in pharmaceutical formulations.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how, as we reported last month, an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.” As explained by Crouch, the case “could significantly impact the ability of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to determine the scope of its own power.” Crouch discussed how, “[a]lthough this is not a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) case, DOGE has utilized OPM as a central conduit” of its Return to Office and Reduction-in-Force initiatives. For more information, check out our case page in Lesko v. United States.