FedCircuitBlog

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

• a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
• a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
• a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
• an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to enablement of prior art. The Court also received a brief in opposition in a patent case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a reply in support of a petition in a trade case, and an amicus brief in another patent case addressing alleged improper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Two new petitions have been filed. One raises questions related the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the test for analogous art. The other raises a question related to after-arising technologies and the written description and enablement requirements. In addition, a response has been filed to a petition raising a question related to what patents must be listed in the Orange Book, along with three new amicus briefs supporting the petition in that same case. Here are the details.

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

• an article predicting that Howard Lutnick will “soon be confirmed by the Senate to be the next Secretary of Commerce”;
• a piece discussing how several companies filed an amicus brief challenging jury instructions in a Texas case, telling the Federal Circuit the instructions “‘lower the standard for patent eligibility’”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit “has reversed a controversial . . . decision that had invalidated composition of matter claims as abstract ideas”; and
• a report covering how “MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel’s January ruling that revived a patent for Novartis AG’s blockbuster heart-disease drug Entresto.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., a patent case. In it, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a district court’s determination that, when calculating a patent term extension for a reissued patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is statutorily required to base its calculation on the original patent’s issue date and not its reissue date. Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article discussing “the interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”;
• a report covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case; and
• a piece reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, new petitions were filed in two patent cases. The court also received a waiver of the right to respond to one of the petitions in those patent cases, a brief in opposition to a petition in another patent case, and three new amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in yet another patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Two new amicus briefs were filed in a pending en banc case concerning standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. Additionally, one new petition was filed, presenting a question regarding apportionment of damages for patent infringement. Finally, the court denied an en banc petition raising a question regarding claim construction. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post covering how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is challenging the “rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex for certain technologies, specifically by advocating that claims to dosage regimens for pharmaceuticals should be almost per se obvious, particularly for such claims for which the pharmaceutical was itself patent protected”;
• another blog post highlighting how a joint letter from the Intellectual Property Owners Association and American Intellectual Property Law Association to Congress “asks that the USPTO be ‘exempted from executive actions that could further hinder its ability to meet its mission’”;
• a report discussing how the D.C. Circuit recently denied Judge Newman’s “request to unseal documents about her suspension for refusing to participate in an investigation into her fitness, saying such documents are confidential unless both the judge under investigation and the chief judge agree to release them”; and
• an editorial proposing “ways for the new Acting Director to fix the USPTO fast.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility and the Federal Circuit’s use of summary affirmances. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in another patent case and a pro se case, as well as a brief in opposition in a trade case. Here are the details.