FedCircuitBlog

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that we have been watching because it attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed an appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding that certain patent claims are unpatentable in light of prior art. The oral argument focused on “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argued is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. The Federal Circuit, however, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie and Judge Stark, affirmed the Board. It found no error in the Board’s unpatentability determinations using, as the relevant date for prior art purposes, the abandoned patent application’s filing date. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. A response brief was filed in a pending en banc case concerning a district court’s responsibility to scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses. Petitioners also filed two new petitions, one seeking an emergency injunction and one presenting a question regarding vicarious liability for direct infringement. Here are the highlights.

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

• a blog post suggesting reasons for the ”the prevalence of filing errors and subsequent correction requirements in Federal Circuit appeals–even among the nation’s most sophisticated appellate practitioners”;
• a report covering how Chief Judge Moore “told the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday that Judge Pauline Newman’s appeal of her effective removal from the [Federal Circuit] should fail because her claims do not meet the ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranted for transfer to another circuit and her constitutional challenges are precluded”;
• an article asking whether the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will “chip away at Federal Circuit Rule 36 summary affirmances” or even “offer a path for [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appellants to circumvent Rule 36 altogether”; and
• a piece highlighting how the Supreme Court granted certiorari Friday to “review whether the government need only pay six years of unpaid combat-related special compensation if a veteran files a claim.”

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari presented in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. The Supreme Court indicated it will consider the following question: “Given the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim ‘involving . . . retired pay’ under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(l)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?” What follows the break is the relevant background and question presented by Soto’s counsel.

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

• a news alert reporting how “Dish Network LLC asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether courts can require attorneys to pay legal fees in exceptionally frivolous patent cases”;
• a blog post analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision where the central issue in the case “revolved around the interpretation of [35 U.S.C.] § 311(b)’s limitation that [inter partes review] challenges may be based only on ‘prior art consisting of patents or printed publications’”; and
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision “canceling trademarks claiming protection for the pink color of ceramic hip components.”

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, six new petitions were filed in two patent cases, a trade case, and three pro se cases. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in two pro se cases, a brief in opposition in a veterans case, two replies in support of petitions in a patent case and a veterans case, and an amicus brief in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and a pro se 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:

• a news alert suggesting decisions by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit “have called into question the validity of broad antibody patent claims, leading some commentators to declare the death of the antibody genus claim;”
• a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “issued a notable opinion on federal preemption of state law conversion (theft) claims and correction of inventorship;”
• a report highlighting how the Supreme Court “rejected a case asking the justices to interpret a patent-infringement safe-harbor provision in a federal statute ‘solely for uses reasonably related’ to the process [for] winning government approval of a drug or medical device;” and
• an article reporting how an “import ban on Roku Inc. streaming devices will stand after the U.S. Supreme Court turned away its challenge to the U.S. International Trade Commission’s finding Universal Electronics Inc. met the agency’s domestic-industry requirement with patented software.”

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

• an article covering how Judge Pauline Newman is “pushing back” against her suspension from the bench over claims she is unfit for duty;
• a report that “[t]he D.C. Circuit doesn’t have the authority to unseal documents related to the Federal Circuit’s suspension of Judge Pauline Newman”;
• a piece highlighting “numerous interesting, precedential decisions from the Federal Circuit on a range of patent issues” in the second half of 2024; and
• an article providing “a statistical review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decisions in patent cases during calendar year 2024.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question regarding claim construction, and the court denied a petition raising questions regarding reliance on expert testimony in applying the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the case involves 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 three new opinions, one in a case related to the rulemaking authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs, another in a takings case related to water rights, and another related to patents alleged to be improperly listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. We also highlight five new cases, two related to trade agreements, two related to takings claims, and one patent case. Finally, we note new briefing in a patent case we have been tracking. Here are the details.