Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made”;
- an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation”;
- a blog post highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong”; and
- an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.”
John Powers published a blog post for IP Watchdog explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made.” According to Powers, “[i]n practice, this is an extremely harsh standard, and is disproportionately punitive to small business inventors who lack the deep pockets to absorb repeated filing costs and years of delay.”
Tim Ashour penned an article for London Insider discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation.” Ashour notes how a party argued a designation in a “provisional application was an obvious drafting error that a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally recognise and mentally correct.” According to Ashour, however, the “Federal Circuit rejected this approach, clarifying that the proper question was not whether a court could correct an alleged typographical error, but whether the provisional provided sufficient written description support for the later-claimed invention.” For more information, check out the court’s opinion in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong.” As explained by Crouch, in a recent case “the Federal Circuit rejected a district court order that skipped the injunction bond altogether.” For more information, see Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Ltd.
Robert lafolla wrote an article for Bloomberg Law suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.” Iafolla explains that the Federal Circuit’s upcoming en banc hearing in Jackler v. Department of Justice “will likely be the first test of whether” the Supreme Court’s decision “will help expand presidential power to summarily ax agency employees deemed ‘inferior officers.’”