FedCircuitBlog

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. 

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

• a report covering how the Federal Circuit “agreed on Tuesday to allow President Trump to maintain many of his tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, extending a pause granted shortly after another panel of judges ruled in late May that the import taxes were illegal”;
• an article describing how “President Donald Trump on Wednesday hailed a favorable decision by [the Federal Circuit] over his sweeping tariff policy as a ‘great’ win for the United States”;
• a piece addressing how “[t]he typically apolitical and staid US Patent and Trademark Office has been swept up in the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal workforce”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]he Trump Administration’s nominee for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director, John Squires, has submitted written responses for the record following his May 21 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee”; and
• an article highlighting how “[t]he acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director’s decision on Friday to reject patent challenges due to the petitioner’s longstanding knowledge of a patent has many attorneys bracing for either a massive rise or dip in Patent Trial and Appeal Board filings.”

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 several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, there has been no new activity since our last post. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases; a new brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc nonprecedential order granting the motions filed by the United States for stays of the judgments and permanent injunctions entered by the Court of International Trade against President Trump’s Executive Orders imposing various tariffs. The court concluded that “a stay is warranted under the circumstances,” and that “these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance.” Here is the full text of the order.