FedCircuitBlog

Guest Post by Tejas N. Narechania*

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex is the latest in a growing set of decisions regarding administrative patent law. A close look at this entire series suggests that Arthrex is a culmination of a subtle shift in the Court’s approach to such cases. Where the Court once lauded the Patent Office’s expertise, the Court’s more recent decisions have emphasized flexibility and political accountability in patent decision-making. This development is both significant and salutary. For one, it marks the ongoing maturation of administrative patent law as one branch of administrative law, subject to the influences of the myriad administrative law values beyond expertise. This shift, moreover, is constructive, subjecting innovation- and access-governing principles to more democratic constraints.

Starting next week, Fed Circuit Blog will publish written contributions from law professors participating in Fed Circuit Blog’s third online symposium. Entitled “Patent Law and Institutional Choice,” this symposium explores the institutional structure of the U.S. patent system and the roles of its institutions: the U.S. Congress; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; federal district courts and juries; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Confronting critiques of this structure and these institutions, the symposium considers how the U.S. patent system may be improved to further the innovation economy. Here is more information on the topics these professors will discuss in their written contributions.

Next week, in an en banc session, the Federal Circuit will hear arguments in Taylor v. McDonough, a veterans case. The court will consider whether equitable estoppel may be used against the government with respect to establishing the effective date of an award pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110. In particular, the court will consider several related questions: (1) whether “granting Mr. Taylor’s claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date under the doctrine of equitable estoppel be contrary to statutory appropriations and thus barred by the Appropriations Clause;” (2) if equitable estoppel does not apply, whether Taylor has a claim for “denial of a constitutional right of access to [Veterans Affairs] processes for securing disability benefits for which he met the eligibility criteria;” and (3) if a right of access exists, whether the right of access was violated here and what the remedy is. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a notice that its 2022 Judicial Conference, originally scheduled for April 1, has now been moved to September 9, 2022. The court will no longer be sitting for oral argument on September 9, and the calendar has been updated on its website. Here is the full text of today’s announcement.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a “Notice of Change to February 2022 Session.” In it, the court announced that it will be conducting all scheduled arguments for the February 2022 session by video conference, with a simultaneous live audio stream of each argument broadcast via the court’s YouTube channel. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit released a public version of a sealed precedential opinion addressing statutory and constitutional standing in a patent infringement case. While released yesterday, the opinion was buried on the Federal Circuit’s website given the date assigned to it—the date the court released the sealed version of the opinion in October. Here is the introduction to the newly-released, public version of the opinion.

Today the White House announced President Biden’s intent to nominate Leonard Stark, currently a District Judge for the District of Delaware, to serve as a Circuit Judge on the Federal Circuit. The announcement highlighted Judge Stark’s extensive experience serving as a judge in the District of Delaware, which handles a substantial share of the nation’s patent infringement cases at the trial level. This announcement follows news of Judge Kathleen O’Malley’s planned retirement, scheduled for March, 2022. Notably, this will be President Biden’s second nomination to the Federal Circuit, following the nomination of now-Judge Tiffany Cunningham. Here is the text of today’s announcement, followed by some additional information about Judge Stark.

Next week, FedCircuitBlog, in conjunction with the Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation at SMU Dedman School of Law, will be hosting its third online symposium. Entitled “Patent Law and Institutional Choice,” this symposium will explore the latest major controversies, legal developments, and judicial decisions in the field of patent law through panel presentations and discussions with distinguished academics. In particular, the symposium will explore the institutional structure of the U.S. patent system and the roles of its institutions: the U.S. Congress; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; federal district courts and juries; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and the U.S. Supreme Court. Confronting critiques of this structure and these institutions, this symposium will consider how the U.S. patent system may be improved to further the innovation economy. After SMU hosts three online discussion panels on Friday, October 29, Fed Circuit Blog will later publish written contributions from each panelist. Here is more information on the symposium, including its topics and speakers and how to register to attend the online discussion panels.

Today the Federal Circuit announced the launch of its new website. Here is the court’s announcement regarding the new website and some highlights of the website’s new and improved features.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced revised protocols for in-person arguments that apply starting with the court’s September 2021 hearings, which begin on Monday, August 30. Notably, compared to the protocols issued in June, the court reduced the number of non-arguing attendees from two to one per arguing counsel; the court adjusted the protocols to require vaccinated individuals to wear masks in the court building; and now, “[t]o enter the courtroom, counsel and attendees will be required to attest to the fact that they are fully vaccinated or have received a negative COVID19 test administered within the prior 48 hours.” Here is the text of this morning’s announcement, with links to the revised protocols and related documents.