Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post discussing how, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace”; and
- a report analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.”
Kevin Noonan published a blog post for Patent Docs discussing how, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace.” Noonan highlights how, “[i]n Extremity Medical, LLC v. Nextremity Solutions, Inc. . . . , the Federal Circuit illustrates the difficulties that can arise in satisfying those statutory requirements for both types of proceedings.” For more information on the underlying case, check out the relevant en banc petition case page.
Christopher Zirpoli authored a congressional report found on Congress.gov analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.” As explained by Zirpoli, the Federal Circuit recently “held that Section 301 actions are subject to judicial review under the standard prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act . . . , in contrast to presidential actions, which are not subject to the APA’s requirements.” Recently the Supreme Court denied a petition to review the Federal Circuit’s judgment. For more on the case, see HMTX Industries LLC v. United States.