FedCircuitBlog

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.

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

• an article describing how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is going all-in on generative artificial intelligence solutions to help improve its business operations”;
• a piece examining a recent precedential Federal Circuit holding that “inter partes review estoppel does not extend to arguments that the claimed invention is invalid because it was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]housands of disabled veterans could be eligible for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal officials had unfairly capped those payments.”

On June 12, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation and, as a result, “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reversed. According to the Court, “[t]he CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.” This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted petitions, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the last remaining case this term that had been decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed in patent cases. The Court also denied two petitions, one raising a question related to patents and one raising questions relating to government contracts. 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 by a former Federal Circuit judge suggesting “[a] bipartisan consensus is quietly emerging in Washington” to “modernize America’s intellectual property system”;
• a report covering how “John A. Squires, President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the US Patent and Trademark Office, was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 20-2 vote”;
• a blog post describing how “the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) posted job openings for patent examiners and trademark examining attorneys on USAJobs.gov,” ending the USPTO’s hiring freeze that was put in place when President Trump took office in January; and
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit “stands today with a dramatically different judicial composition than at any point in its 43-year history.”

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary.