FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting that “[w]hether machine learning is patent eligible depends upon whether you ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how “the majority of Schedule A cases ‘involve allegations of trademark or design patent infringement, though some allege violations of copyrights or of utility patents”;
• a blog post highlighting highlighting how, “[i]n the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what”; and
• a blog post covering how the USPTO’s “‘settled expectations’ policy” for denying petitions for inter partes review “now has a second challenger at the Supreme Court.”

Here is an update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases have attracted at least one amicus brief or the court has appointed amicus counsel. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases, we highlight three recent opinions in cases raising questions related to military records, tax refunds, and invalidity for lack of enablement, and one order dismissing an appeal. In addition, we highlight three newly identified cases raising questions related to inter partes review proceedings, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits. As for new briefing, we highlight three response briefs in cases that raised questions related to infringement, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; one principal and response brief in a case that raised copyright and patent questions; three reply briefs in cases that raised questions related to patent eligibility, claim construction, and educational assistance benefits; and seven new amicus briefs in one case that raised a question related to infringement. We also highlight two recent oral arguments in cases that raised questions related to claim construction and veterans educational assistance benefits. 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 blog post discussing how, “[s]ince the institution of inter parte review . . . proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and district courts have become somewhat commonplace”; and
• a report analyzing how “[r]ecent administrations have conducted several investigations into whether various foreign practices are actionable . . . under Section 301 [of the Trade Act of 1974], . . . one of a number of statutes those administrations have used to impose tariffs on various U.S. imports.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a patent case, a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board, and two pro se cases, and four waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the petitioner’s brief was filed in the only pending en banc case, which raises questions related to the President’s Article II powers and the Civil Service Reform Act. As for petitions, one new petition was filed raising questions related to appellate procedure and a motion to transfer. Finally, one petition was denied in a case raising several questions related to attorney’s fees. 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 noting how “[s]everal U.S. senators expressed strong support at a hearing Tuesday for a bill aimed at expanding which inventions are eligible for patents, while others appeared to have reservations about the potential effect of the proposed changes on healthcare costs”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit “reaffirmed its understanding that so-called ‘book of wisdom’ evidence can be used in estimating the hypothetical bargain the parties would have negotiated as of the date of infringement, but not to alter the terms of the bargain they would have struck in view of ex post evidence”;
• a blog post highlighting how a “unanimous opinion authored by Judge Hughes affirmed” fixing “the government’s liability for infringing . . . through a hypothetical negotiation rather than simply using the rates in the parties’ prior license”; and
• a blog post suggesting risk to patent rights created using artificial intelligence “almost never comes from the AI model’s involvement.”

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Wyeth appealed a lower court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law of invalidity for lack of enablement. The case presented questions related to claim construction as well as whether pre-issuance provisional rights under the Patent Act extend to induced infringement. In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Linn and Hughes, the court affirmed the judgment of invalidity. This is our summary of the opinion.

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

• an article covering how “Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider her bid to save a suit against her fellow judges for suspending her from the bench over her refusal to undergo medical tests”;
• a blog post reporting how the Patent Office “has finalized a rule requiring foreign-domiciled patent applicants, inventors, and owners to be represented by a registered patent practitioner in nearly everything they file;”
• an article discussing how “[m]ajor patent systems, including the United States, require a human inventive contribution”; and
• an article suggesting that “[i]mportant progress has been made on repaying illegally collected tariffs.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in another pro se case; and one brief in opposition was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, one amicus brief was filed in the only pending en banc case, which raises questions related to the President’s removal powers. The Federal Circuit also denied one petition for en banc review raising a question related the Hatch-Waxman Act. Here are the details.