FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article and a blog post commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi; and
• two articles providing updates on the ongoing proceedings concerning Judge Newman’s competency to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit.

Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a government contract case, a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the links to the orders.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight an opinion in a tax case, an opinion in a government contract case, a patent case and a pro se employment case with new briefing, and an oral argument recap in a case concerning the Clean Water Act. Here are the details.

The Federal Circuit heard oral argument last month in City of Wilmington v. United States, a Clean Water Act case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the City of Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case involving an antidumping administrative review. 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. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued its opinion yesterday in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, one in a trade case, one in an employment case, and three in pro se cases. Three briefs in opposition were filed, two in veterans cases and one in a patent case. Two waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case. And, finally, four petitions were denied, three in patent cases and in one pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case that presented the Court with the opportunity to decide “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.’” In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment of invalidity and found a patent “specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims.” Justice Gorsuch authored the Court’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in related patent cases involving patent claims that were deemed invalid as indefinite. The court also released seven nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and one of the orders and links to the other dismissals.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a pro se case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released four nonprecedential orders: one summarily affirming a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board, one summarily affirming a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, one transferring a veteran’s case to the Western District of Texas, and one dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinion and orders and a link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition filed in a case raising a question about what constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction, three new responses to petitions related to eligibility and design patent’s non-obviousness requirement, and two amicus briefs also related to design patent’s non-obviousness requirement. The court also denied two petitions raising questions about eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.