FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a response brief was filed in a pending en banc case raising questions regarding how to establish standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. As for pending petitions, a new petition has been filed in a patent case; a response has been filed to a petition raising multiple questions regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury; and an amicus brief has been filed in support of a petition raising a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. 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 arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
• a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
• a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 10 panels to consider 58 cases. Of the 58 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 36. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, only one case that is scheduled for oral argument attracted an amicus brief. Here’s what you need to know about that case.

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

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit recently “established a more rigorous test for determining when a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application can be considered prior art as of its provisional filing date”;
• an article describing how the Federal Circuit recently “upheld a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision to partially cancel trademarks”; and
• a blog post discussing the ongoing dispute between Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. While no new petitions were filed, waivers of the right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case. Additionally, the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court has denied three petitions for en banc rehearing. These petitions raised questions concerning the substantial evidence standard for review of decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the test for analogous prior art, after-arising technologies, the written description and enablement requirements, and waiver of alternative grounds for affirmance. Here are the details.

Here is an 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. With respect to these cases, since our last update we highlight five new opinions, four in patent cases and one in a government contract case; two new argument recaps, one in a trademark case and one in a trade case; and three new cases, one a design patent case and two utility patent cases. 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 report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
• a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
• an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”

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 a takings case and a pro se case. The Court also received waivers of the right to respond in five pro se cases; briefs in opposition in two patent cases; a supplemental brief in a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; and two new amicus briefs in a patent case. In addition, the Court denied petitions in two patent cases and two cases addressing Rule 36. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new petitions have been filed. One of the two new petitions raises multiple issues regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury. The other new petition raises questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.