Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists”;
- a blog post characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight”;
- an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies”; and
- a blog post emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case.
Gene Quinn penned a blog post for IPWatchdog describing a petition at the Supreme Court as a battle with the Federal Circuit over “prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists.” Quinn frames the petition as “a direct challenge to a doctrine that has quietly but materially destabilized patent rights, introduced systemic unpredictability.” Quinn argues the Federal Circuit’s approach, including its “presumption that prosecution delays exceeding six years are ‘unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial,’” is fundamentally incompatible with the Patent Act and with the realities of patent prosecution. For more information on the case, check out the case page in Hyatt v. Squires.
Lisa Mueller and Lucia Yuan penned a blog post for Patent Panorama characterizing a Federal Circuit decision as “a masterclass in the consequences of acting as one’s own lexicographer” and “a stark reminder that definitions placed in patent specifications carry enormous weight.” The authors emphasize that the ruling serves as a warning for patent practitioners, stressing it “reinforces the principle that lexicographic definitions in patent specifications are binding and difficult to escape,” while also underscoring “the critical importance of drafting definition sections with extreme care.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.
Theresa Schliep authored an article for Law360 reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office has “significantly expanded design patent protections with its guidance for claiming computer-generated images shown using virtual reality, holograms and similar technologies.” Schliep points out how some practitioners viewed the change as substantial, quoting one attorney’s statement that “‘[i]t is definitely a swing in the complete opposite direction of where the 2023 guidance was going.’” Schliep also highlights criticism of the new policy.
Amy Howe authored a blog post for SCOTUSBlog emphasizing how the Supreme Court “left a variety of questions open” in its decision affirming the Federal Circuit in President Trump’s tariffs case. As explained by Howe, “the majority opinion . . . did not address the refund issue at all.” Howe notes how the litigation has returned to the Court of International Trade, where “more than 2,000 lawsuits seeking refunds have now been filed, including by major U.S. companies.” Howe highlights how the case also leaves open whether President Trump can impose new tariffs under other laws. For more information on the underlying case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.