Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
- a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
- a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
- an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”
Jeffrey I.D. Lewis and Stuart Knight co-authored a piece for IP Watchdog discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom. The co-authors note that, in the United States, the Federal Circuit demonstrated its application of the “two-step framework for [patent] eligibility analysis” in a fairly recent opinion in Angel Technologies Group, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Conversely, the United Kingdom applies a “four-step test, known as the Aerotel stages, when analyzing patent ineligible subject matter.” You can read the Angel Technologies opinion here.
Paul Cassell wrote a blog post for The Volokh Conspiracy reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman.” Cassell describes the situation as an unconstitutional “stealth impeachment.” In more detail, he says the standard practice is “for issues of judicial conduct to be resolved by referrals to judges in a different Circuit from the one involved, who would have a more detached point of view.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket. Crouch explains there are currently “fifteen pending cases that could reshape multiple facets of patent law.” Crouch suggests that “[a]t the heart of this term lies a set of challenges to the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 summary affirmance practice.” To search pending petitions, including by those coded “patent” and “Rule 36,” check out our Supreme Court petitions page.
Ryan Davis filed an article with Law 360 claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.” Davis notes how the Federal Circuit recently held that “small market segments can still be significant and substantial enough to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. International Trade Commission.