FedCircuitBlog

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

• a post highlighting how “[s]everal amici have weighed in this week on a petition challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) recession of former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s guidance on discretionary denial”;
• an article examining the “courtroom showdown over President Trump’s tariffs” and how “it could still take a lot longer to permanently settle the legal question of whether the president has the authority to impose his wide-ranging tariffs”;
• a piece discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is “adding an image search tool . . . to existing tools for utility patent examiners” to expand “how artificial intelligence is used in patent examination”; and
• an article covering how “Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. convinced the Federal Circuit to temporarily block MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. from launching a generic version of blockbuster heart-failure drug Entresto while the two sides contest the need for a lengthier pause.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court does not have any cases pending with granted petitions. With regard to pending petitions, one new petition was filed asking the Court to consider whether a district court’s actions in substantially reducing the time to trial violated the petitioner’s right to due process. In that same case, a waiver of the right to respond was filed. Waivers of the right to respond were also filed in three other cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, V.O.S. Holdings filed its response brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Sixteen amicus briefs were also filed in that case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received three new petitions for en banc review in patent cases. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit held an en banc session to hear oral argument in Percipient.AI v. United States. In this government contract case, the court is considering “who can be ‘an interested party objecting to . . . any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)?” This is our argument recap. 

Today, the Federal Circuit announced it will hear oral argument in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump on July 31 at 10:00 a.m, with audio of the proceedings livestreamed on its YouTube channel due to high public interest. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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

• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “recently clarified what prior art may be part of a ‘ground’ in an [inter partes review] and therefore subject to IPR estoppel”;
• a blog post on analyzing “several dozen new discretionary denials” issued by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart last week;
• a piece discussing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s new “[i]nterim processes for [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] Workload Management”; and
• an article reporting on how Radian Memory Systems LLC “withdrew its injunction motion seeking to block certain Samsung Electronics Co. products several weeks after the Trump administration filed a rare statement of interest in the case.”

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

• a piece suggesting recent decisions by Acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart “provide helpful guidance” on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will interpret and apply new discretionary denial procedures;
• a post criticizing Stewart for having “inundated patent litigators in May and June with dozens of rulings altering the landscape of discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”;
• an article discussing how “Congress is considering a bill that would effectively overturn” Supreme Court decisions dealing with patent protections, thus “[empowering] US innovators to compete with their rivals in China and Europe on a level playing field”; and
• a blog post indicating “[a]n important recent development in pharmaceutical patent law is the Federal Circuit’s embrace of . . . infringement by drug label.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the parties filed their en banc briefs in a pending case raising questions related to statutory interpretation and agency deference in the context of a regulation adopted by the Office of Personnel Management related to overtime pay. Two amicus briefs were also filed in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Additionally, the Federal Circuit invited a response from appellants in two patent cases and denied three petitions. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing how administrative judges at the Merit Systems Protection Board have “seen a flood of new cases land on their dockets, causing their caseloads to increase by the week;”
• a blog post focusing on United States Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s “newly implemented ‘settled expectations’ doctrine that treats patent age as a primary factor for denying institution;”
• a piece claiming “acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s discretionary denial in the iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. cases on June 6 has sent shockwaves through the patent litigation community;” and
• an article maintaining “[p]roposed legislation to change the process adjudicating patent infringement in cases involving ‘skinny labels’ is a solution in search of a problem.”

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 9 panels to consider 54 cases. Of the 54 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 35 cases. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This Court Week, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.