FedCircuitBlog

• Federal Circuit Clerk’s Office Inaccessible Amidst Protests – Due to mass protests in Washington, D.C., the Federal Circuit clerk’s office was inaccessible for both Monday and Tuesday of this week.
• ‘Pump And Dump’ Victims To Recoup Losses – The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision in Adkins v. U.S. allowing “pump and dump” victims to recoup a two million dollar loss.
• Party May Have Standing with Incorrect Patent Assignment – In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., the Federal Circuit found a reformation to an incorrect assignment does not deprive a plaintiff of Article III standing.

Here’s the latest.

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

• Two new petitions were docketed by the Supreme Court this week. Those cases were B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Petitioner v. Facebook, Inc. and Tonya Knowles, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The Supreme Court received four separate replies for the following petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Baley v. United States, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., and (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission.
• Finally, two new amicus briefs were submitted to the Court this week. The first by the Center for Auto Safety in Callan Campbell v. United States and the second by ACT | The App Association in TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

Here are the details.

• USTPO Extends Patent and Trademark Deadlines – Due to COVID-19, the USPTO extends the time period to file patent and trademark related documents and provides waivers for certain fees.
• Patent Eligibility Turns on the Content and Not the Length of the Claim – The Federal Circuit emphasized, in Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, the importance of the content of a patent claim over its length in determining eligibility.
• Opinions Vary On Whether the USTPO May Make New Laws Without the Rule-making Process – The issue of whether the USPTO may properly make law using its procedural and POP process or whether the rules may only be made under the APA process is yet to be decided. 

Here’s the latest.

• Judge Lourie Wins 2020 American Inns of Court Award – The American Inns of Court selected Judge Alan D. Lourie as the winner of the 2020 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award for the Federal Circuit.
• Prior Art-Based Invalidity Analysis Possible for Indefinite Claim – The Federal Circuit declined to find a claim with a means-plus-function element unpatentable because prior art analysis could still be possible when the means-plus-function element is used as an alternative structure to a non-means-plus-function structure.
• True Colors Shining Through – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Forney Industries, Inc. may provide a new framework for creating product packaging that can be protected by trademark law.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Supreme Court received responses for the following five petitions: (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, (3) Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., (4) CJ ChellJedang Corp. v. International Trade Commission, and (5) Ford Motor Co. v. United States.
• The Supreme Court received replies in the four following petitions: (1) Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, (2) Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., (3) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co., and (4) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
• In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Ale USA Inc., Baxter International filed an amicus brief in favor of the respondent.

Here are the details.

• A Patent Emergency – A new Supreme Court petition declared that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of patent eligibility law is a “patent emergency”.
• Federal Circuit OKs Do-Over in Apple Decryption Case – In light of Arthrex, the Federal Circuit remanded a case for a new hearing before different PTAB judges.
• Federal Circuit Dismisses Challenges to Nonfinal Patent Office decision – The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

Here’s the latest.

• Federal Circuit Suspends In-Person Oral Arguments – The Federal Circuit indefinitely suspended in-person oral arguments amidst COVID-19 pandemic.
• Biotech Trade Organization Urges the Federal Circuit to End Obviousness Test – in its amicus brief, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization asks the Federal Circuit to end its “unrealistic” approach to evaluating obviousness.
• Federal Circuit Denies Review for Real-Parties-in-Interest Arguments – The Federal Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to declare PTAB decisions regarding the real-parties-in-interest non-appealable.

Here’s the latest.

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

• The Chamberlain Group filed a new petition in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al.
• In Baley v. United States, the United States and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations both filed briefs in opposition.
• In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Celgene Corp. submitted its reply to the petition of certiorari.

Here are the details.

This month we highlight two papers exploring research related to the Federal Circuit.

• Re-Thinking the “Motivation to Combine” in Patent Law by Joshua Lee Sohn.
• Ajinomoto v. ITC, the Doctrine of Equivalents, and Biomolecule Claim Limitations at the Federal Circuit by Professor Christopher M. Holman.

• Federal Circuit Snubs Extrinsic Evidence – Courts are not required to consult extrinsic evidence in every patent eligibility case.
• Defining the Contours of Arthrex Decision – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision has resulted in a large number of PTAB appeals.
• Federal Circuit Upholds Application of Dedication-Disclosure Doctrine – The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s application of the dedication-disclosure doctrine.

Here’s the latest.