FedCircuitBlog

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following question: “Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion. In it, the court affirmed a judgment in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Notably, Judge Mayer dissented. Here are the introductions to the majority and dissenting opinions.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument earlier this month in FS.COM Inc. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the ITC that Panduit Corp. and The Siemon Company infringed certain patents and The Siemon Company and FS.com Inc. infringed one patent. The panel hearing the oral argument included Chief Judge Moore and Judges Prost and Hughes. This is our argument recap.

Last week, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Vidal. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by a district court that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precluded judicial review of certain factors (the so-called Fintiv factors) adopted by the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office to govern decisions whether to institute inter partes review of patents. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a petition for permission to appeal an order of the United States Court of Federal Claims. In the second order, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Western District of Texas to transfer a case. In the third order, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to terminate an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the introductions to the orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and veterans case; a party waived its right to respond in another patent case; and the Court denied a petition in a government contract case. Here are the details. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion, a nonprecedential opinion, a nonprecedential order, and a Rule 36 judgment. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed-in-part and denied-in-part a petition for review regarding the Veterans Affairs Adjudication Procedures Manual. In the nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and dismissed-in-part an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. And in the nonprecedential order, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In the only pending en banc case, a veterans case, the court received the appellant’s supplemental brief. As for patent cases, the court received a new petition raising questions related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and two nonprecedential orders. In the opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article about “[r]ival drugmakers Viatris and Merck . . . settl[ing] their yearslong dispute over patents on brand name diabetes treatments”;
• another article about a petition to the Supreme Court asking “the high court to review an appeals court’s decision that patents can only be issued to human inventors”; and
• a blog post about another Supreme Court petition “ask[ing] the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Ingenio was estopped from challenging the validity of patent claims that were denied institution during inter partes review (IPR) validity proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”