FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article suggesting the Federal Circuit in a recent opinion “explored and clarified” the limits on how a court can correct errors in patents;
• a blog post indicating another recent Federal Circuit decision answers the question of “[w]hat value” a patent has when it “expires before it issues”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s “unanimous decision in Hikma v. Amarin fundamentally altered the legal landscape for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, imposing a stricter standard for what constitutes patent infringement liability and potentially clearing a path for lower-cost alternatives to reach patients sooner”; and
• an article arguing President Trump’s “new Section 301 tariffs . . . run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to ‘speak clearly’ when authorizing the executive to make decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.’”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the opinion, the court affirms the PTAB’s invalidation of a claim in an inter partes review proceeding. The claimed invention was a crossbow. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, three new petitions were filed in a patent case and two pro se cases. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in response to a petition to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, fourteen amicus briefs were filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal power. Also, two new response briefs were filed in response to petitions in patent cases raising questions related to damages, the written description requirement, and the enablement requirement. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two precedential opinions and one nonprecedential opinion. The first precedential opinion comes in a Tucker Act case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The second precedential opinion and the nonprecedential opinion come in separate patent cases appealed from the Southern District of Florida. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing “a recent decision from the . . . Federal Circuit reinforcing the boundaries of patent eligibility as it concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning models”;
• a blog post covering how the “Office of Personnel Management moved Friday to finalize regulations that collectively seize jurisdiction over thousands of employee appeals, as the federal government’s dedicated HR agency moves to centralize power over the federal workforce”; and
• an article highlighting purported experts as saying that, “while Section 301 is the apparent ‘Plan C’ for enacting tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports, the law gives the president a better legal defense for the duties.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The precedential opinion comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from Northern District of California, and the other comes in response to a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The nonprecedential order denies a petition for writ of mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas seeking to stay a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order.

As noted on the court’s website, the Federal Circuit will not hear oral arguments this month. According to an article published by Law 360, a court spokesperson said the National Courts Building “is currently undergoing significant, internal infrastructure upgrades that require portions of the building to be inaccessible for safety reasons.” We will resume Court Week postings with the court’s September session.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition. This morning the court released three nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.