FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
• an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”

Last week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case we have been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Judges Dyk, Schall, and Prost heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article reporting how Judge Newman “petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to lift her suspension from hearing new cases,” which has “lasted nearly two years”;
• a blog post analyzing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an interesting question relating to damages calculation”;
• a blog post discussing how the Supreme Court’s recent denial of a petition “leaves in place the Federal Circuit’s determination that [published] U.S. patent applications are prior art as of their filing date in inter partes review . . . validity proceedings conducted under the pre-America Invents Act . . . statute; and
• an article suggesting the Patent and Trademark Office “has taken numerous notable steps” related to patent subject matter eligibility and that “these developments suggest a recalibration of the USPTO’s Section 101 approach, particularly for AI-related applications.”

Late last month, the Federal Circuit issued an order in In re Intel Corporation, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Intel petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to challenge the Patent Trademark Office’s denial of its request for institution of inter partes review. In a per curiam order, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark denied the petition. This is our summary of the order.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a pro se case raising a question related to access to the lower court’s electronic filing system. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit court heard oral argument in Titanium, LLC v. Zspec Design LLC, a trademark case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Titanium appeals a denial by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of its petition to cancel Zspec Design’s trademark registration. Chief Judge Moore and Judges Cunningham and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• an article discussing how the “skinny label” patent case at the Supreme Court ”has the potential to elucidate for how far induced infringement” can reach;
• an article reporting how the Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires in an agency memo “added to the list of scenarios under which his office can strike down patent validity challenges in order to ‘protect American manufacturers and small business’”;
• a blog post observing how, “[u]nder today’s [utility] patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent,” and arguing “this restriction oppresses the American inventor”; and
• a commentary suggesting the Supreme Court’s tariff decision unravels “some . . . deeper themes and fault lines that the Court will grapple with in the future.”

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Squires, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Apple appealed a judgment of the Northern District of California, which rejected challenges to instructions issued by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding discretionary denials of petitions for inter partes review proceedings. In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto and joined by Judges Lourie and Chen, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our summary of the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, since our last update five amicus briefs were filed that support neither party. As for pending petitions, since our last update three new petitions were filed in a patent case, a takings case, and a case addressing use of Federal Circuit Rule 36. In addition, a waiver of the right to respond a petition was filed in a pro se case, a reply brief was filed in support of a petition in a patent case, and the Supreme Court denied a petition in another patent case. Here are the details.