FedCircuitBlog

• Federal Circuit to district court: Show Us Your Work on Section 101 – The Federal Circuit reversed a decision from the District of Delaware for a lack of reasoning supporting the invalidation of patent claims.
• No Pause on American Axle Case for Coming Supreme Court Petition – American Axle did not persuade the Federal Circuit to stay its case in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, but Judge Moore took the opportunity to ask for guidance from the Supreme Court on patentability.
• Determining the Likelihood that an AI Patent Application Will Be Allowed at the USPTO – The USPTO is adapting to increased interest in artificial intelligence, but decisions from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court have caused a rise in rejections in the field.

Here’s the latest.

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Is Troubling For Generic Drug Manufacturers – In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion addressing the role of skinny labels in an induced infringement analysis.
• Work History Tool Properly Held Ineligible for Patent Protection – The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion on Monday affirming a district court decision that an invention directed at a method for verifying work history is too abstract to patent.
• Fed. Circ. Urged To Undo Ugg’s $450K Trademark Win – An Australian apparel company argued on Monday that the lower court used the wrong legal test in finding that “ugg” is not a generic word for a kind of sheepskin boot.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• Two new reply briefs were filed with the Court, the first by Comcast in Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., and the second by Duke in Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
• The Court denied a total of three petitions this week: (1) Robles v. Wilkie, (2) Medina v. Federal Aviation Administration, and (3) B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc.

Here are the details.

• Full Federal Circuit Won’t Revisit Dana-Farber Win on Named Inventors – The Federal Circuit refused to rehear a case en banc involving the addition of inventors to a pharmaceutical patent.
• CAFC Affirms District Court Dismissal of Declaratory Judgment Under Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ – The Doctrine of ‘Abstention’ guided the Federal Circuit’s decision in Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso to affirm the lower court’s ruling to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment.
• Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Light of the Specification – Snyders Heart Valve can continue its infringement claims against St. Jude’s Medical after a recent decision by the Federal Circuit.

Here’s the latest.

• Fed. Circ. Backs Sanofi, Regeneron PTAB Win Over Amgen – In a precedential opinion issued on Tuesday, the Federal Circuit upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating Amgen’s patent aimed at treating inflammatory disorders.
• Patent Reviews in ‘Limbo’ As Supreme Court Takes Case on Judges – The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced that it will review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.
• Fed. Circ. Denies Appeal of Order Backing Card IP Under Alice – On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit rejected an interlocutory appeal after a district court found that a patent describing a card that can be used as a debit card, a loyalty card, and a gift card all at once was not directed to an abstract idea.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related Arthrex cases.
• The following two new petitions for writ of certiorari were submitted to the Supreme Court: (1) Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc. and (2) Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
• Donuts, Inc. filed its brief in opposition with the Court in Whitserve LLC v. Donuts Inc.
• One waiver of right to respond to the petition in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. was filed with the Court by Gilead Sciences.
• Lastly, the Supreme Court denied a total of 18 different petitions this week.

Here are the details.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari in three related Arthrex cases: (1) United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1434), (2) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (19-1452), and (3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (19-1458). The Court decided to consolidate the cases for briefing and oral argument and announced that all future filings and activity will be reflected on docket of No. 19-1434. The Court’s widely anticipated review will determine the fate of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) under the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

• SCOTUS Denial of TCL v. Ericsson Petition Means Juries Decide Damages for SEP Infringement – The Supreme Court declined to review a Federal Circuit decision requiring jury trials for the determination of damages for past infringing activities.
• Full Federal Circuit Grapples With Right to Review VA Manual – The Federal Circuit’s first telephonic oral argument for an en banc rehearing of a case was held last Thursday.

Here’s the latest.

Earlier this week, on October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., the long-running software copyright case. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this extended oral argument took place over the phone and lasted for over 90 minutes. The Court worked to great lengths to untangle the attorneys’ many vital arguments that have developed over the past decade. As we previewed the day before the argument, the issues, in this case, are the availability of copyright protection for software interfaces, in particular Oracle’s Java SE declarations, and Google’s copying of such code that it contends is fair use.

• Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Between Google and Oracle – The historic and multibillion-dollar copyright suit made its way to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. 
• Fed. Circ. Orders Redo In ‘Extremely Frustrating’ Patent Case – The Federal Circuit states that fundamental questions need to be resolved before the court can make a decision regarding a patent claim construction fight.
• Rently Makes Section 101 Bid to High Court – Just as the Supreme Court kicked off its new term by denying to review a Section 101 eligibility decision, Rently urges the High Court to review its case.

Here’s the latest.