Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting five important Federal Circuit rulings so far in 2023;
- a blog post contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations”; and
- an article for discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in a patent case addressing obviousness.
Richard W. Hoffman authored an article for IAM highlighting “five Federal Circuit rulings from 2023’s first half that warrant close review” by those in the practice of patent law. He notes, along with four other cases, the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. He remarks that this “case is a warning to all patent applicants that the broader the claims that are sought, the more the patent application must enable.”
Mark Stallion posted a blog post to IPWatchdog contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations.” He highlights Thaler v. Vidal, a case decided by the Federal Circuit that had “ask[ed] for a reversal of a finding that AI can’t be listed as an inventor on a patent application.” He notes this case affirmed the decision of the lower court, but he believes, “as AI becomes more sophisticated, these [types of] recent decisions won’t make sense.” He further remarks it “is clear that AI impacts the intersection” of “name, image, likeness rights (NILs), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), artificial intelligence (AI) creations, big data, blockchain, . . . the metaverse,” and that “intellectual property is in the midst.”
Kelcee Griffis authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in In re Couvaras, a patent case addressing obviousness. She notes how, in the decision, the “Federal Circuit clarified a caveat for when an otherwise obvious idea could become eligible for protection.” Specifically, she writes about how the court held that “reciting the mechanism for known compounds to yield a known result cannot overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, even if the nature of that mechanism is unexpected.”