Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post suggesting the Federal Circuit “established an important precedent regarding inherent disclosure and implicit claim construction” in a recent opinion issued in an appeal from an inter partes review proceeding;
- an article describing how the Federal Trade Commission is calling “on Teva, Novartis, Mylan and other drugmakers” to “remove patents from a key federal database that partially insulates their drugs from generic competition”;
- a report discussing a recent petition for en banc rehearing that argues a Federal Circuit opinion related to the domestic industry requirement for establishing jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission “overlooks the cardinal rule that statutory language must be read in context”; and
- an article discussing how “[t]welve states . . . urged a federal court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping taxes on imports.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO suggesting the Federal Circuit “established an important precedent regarding inherent disclosure and implicit claim construction” in a recent opinion issued in an appeal from an inter partes review proceeding. Crouch indicated concern with “the Federal Circuit’s apparent preference for resolving technical disputes through claim construction” rather than “through detailed factual analysis of prior art technology subject to substantial evidence review.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.
Bryan Koenig authored an article for Law360 describing how the Federal Trade Commission is calling “on Teva, Novartis, Mylan and other drugmakers” to “remove patents from a key federal database that partially insulates their drugs from generic competition.” Koenig reported how the FTC argued recently that these patents cover “devices, not drugs, and thus don’t warrant such protection.” Koenig said that, in sending a third round of warning letters to demand drugmakers to remove their patents from the database, the FTC cited a Federal Circuit decision from December that found several of Teva Pharmaceuticals’ inhaler patents “don’t belong in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book.” For more information on that decision, check out our case page in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC.
Eileen McDermott posted an report on IP Watchdog discussing a recent petition for en banc rehearing that argues a Federal Circuit opinion related to the domestic industry requirement for establishing jurisdiction of the International Trade Commission “overlooks the cardinal rule that statutory language must be read in context.” McDermott highlighted how the petition suggests “unintended consequences” the decision could have. She quotes the petition as saying the Federal Circuit’s “decision conflates the activity of ‘patent ownership’ with the activities of a ‘mere importer,’ neither of which historically resulted in a domestic industry, but both of which might be an ‘industry’ today given the decision’s overbroad interpretation of ‘labor or capital.’” For more information, check out the case page for Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission.
Paul Wiseman wrote an article published by the Associated Press detailing how “[t]welve states . . . urged a federal court to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping taxes on imports.” Wiseman recounted how “[a] three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York” heard the states’ arguments last Wednesday.” Wiseman explained how this court “specifically deals with civil lawsuits involving international trade” and how its decisions “can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court,” which is where he says the legal challenges to President Trump’s tariffs are “widely expected” to end up.