FedCircuitBlog

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.

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

• an article examining how “[t]ech companies are embracing an unorthodox appellate procedure to challenge policy shifts expanding the US Patent and Trademark Office director’s power”;
• another article covering how advocacy groups “have thrown their support behind” a challenge to the USPTO’s retroactive application of “a decision withdrawing earlier guidance on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should not review patent challenges”;
• a post discussing how “certain comments” by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director nominee John Squires “during his Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearing . . . could reflect alignment not only with Acting Director Stewart, but with Congress’s objective when it passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision for offering “a concerning example of the Federal Circuit departing from well-established patent claim construction doctrine”; and
• a piece covering how “James Woodruff II, Trump’s nominee” for the Merit Systems Protection Board, saw his nomination advance out of a Senate committee “on an 8-4 vote.”

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, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in a patent case involving so-called skinny labels, two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in two related patent cases, and the Court denied two petitions in patent cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the government filed its opening brief in President Trump’s appeal challenging the judgments and injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade in cases related to his tariffs. Two amicus briefs were also filed in the same case. Additionally, the Federal Circuit received two new petitions for en banc review, one in a patent case appealed from a district court and one in a pro se case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Lastly, the Federal Circuit recently denied two petitions for en banc rehearing. Here are the details.

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

• a piece suggesting “[r]ecent Trump Administration actions point to enhanced support for patent rights”;
• a report analyzing a “dramatic increase in denials of Patent Trial and Appeal Board petitions” following guidance issued on March 24;
• a post discussing how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “on Thursday designated as informative a Director Review decision,” in which “Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart said the Board abused its discretion by instituting two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the same claims”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will establish its new Southeast Regional Outreach office at its Alexandria headquarters,” which reverses “a previous decision to locate the facility in Atlanta.”

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve 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 a new opinion issued in a patent case resolving a dispute related to claim construction, a new amicus brief in a patent case addressing discretionarily denials of petitions for inter partes review based on parallel district court litigation, a response brief in a patent case involving a dispute related to claim construction, and an intervenor brief filed by the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a case involving an appeal and cross-appeal from an inter partes review proceeding. Finally, the court scheduled oral argument next month in two cases that attracted amicus briefs. Here are the details.

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

• a piece suggesting the United States government’s decision to file “a Statement of Interest in . . . a patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division,” is “quite telling, and will be taken as extremely good news by patent owners”;
• an article discussing how a “group of five small businesses on Wednesday signed up prominent appellate lawyer Neal Katyal and former federal appeals court judge Michael McConnell to defend their court victory over President Donald Trump’s tariffs”;
• a blog post examining how “[t]he [United States Patent and Trademark Office] has begun implementing a comprehensive enforcement system for false assertions of small entity and micro entity fee status”; and
• a report covering how “Motorola Solutions Inc. challenged the US Patent and Trademark Office’s retroactive application of a policy shift that killed its efforts to invalidate eight patents in administrative proceedings.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has scheduled oral argument in President Trump’s appeal challenging judgments and injunctions entered Court of International Trade in cases challenging his tariffs. Also three new en banc petitions have also been filed in patent cases, two appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and one appealed from a district court. 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 suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “plan for using AI at the agency to speed up the process of granting patents” expects artificial intelligence vendors “to be paid in exposure rather than cold hard cash”;
• a piece discussing how the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has . . . held that patent owners eventually have the right to assume their patents won’t be challenged in inter partes reviews”;
• a report highlighting how “[a] coalition of tech, auto, and manufacturing companies” urged the Federal Circuit “to support a software company’s challenge to a Trump administration policy change at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
• a post examining how “predictive analytics firm Recentive” argues “the Federal Circuit’s decision to eliminate all patent protection for novel machine learning applications using established models . . . chills U.S. innovation [in] an incredibly important area of emerging technology.”

On June 4, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appealed a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judge Taranto authored the opinion for the panel. Joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the opinion explains why the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s claim construction and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.