FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “introduced new production goals for judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, asking them to publish decisions on appeals of denied patent applications within 12 months and issue more rulings each month”;
• a report noting the Federal Circuit “dismissed a legal claim against the NFL’s New Orleans Saints from a man who says he is the ‘direct descendant of the Kings of France’ over the trademark of the flour-de-lis symbol”;
• a piece reporting that Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, posted on X “delete all IP law”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision’s use of “the increasingly fictional construct at the center of patent law: the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)”; and
• an article covering how the Patent and Trademark Office recently “announced a new working group dedicated to broadening the Office’s efforts to mitigate common threats to the U.S. patent system.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, oral argument in Soto v. United States will take place later this month. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case. The Court also received a waiver of the right to respond to the petition in that patent case, along with a reply brief in another patent case. Here are the details.

On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. 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. As for why, it indicated “the CRSC statute does not explicitly provide its own settlement mechanism.” It then held that “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” Soto challenges these findings by arguing that the Barring Act does not apply to CRSC settlement claims. This is our argument preview.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed, and two previously filed petitions have been denied. The first new petition raises a question related to Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the patent has already expired; the second raises a question regarding whether a court can rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of a patent after ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing; and the third raises a question concerning collateral estoppel related to a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two denied petitions came in a pro se case and in an appeal related to obviousness. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• a blog post discussing how a recent decision in a patent case by the Federal circuit focuses “on a novel argument about provisional rights”;
• another blog post discussing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “illustrates circumstances under which the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board’s obviousness determination did not pass muster.”;
• a piece reporting how the Council for Innovation Promotion recently released a report “urging the Trump Administration and Congress to take 18 key steps to strengthen the U.S. IP system”; and
• a report claiming a recent Federal Circuit decision “has created pitfalls for entities using a type of patent claim that describes an improvement on previous technology, making the so-called Jepson format, which is already uncommon, even less appealing for applicants.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article noting how the Federal Circuit recently held oral argument in a case asking “whether prosecution laches is a legitimate doctrine that can render any patent unenforceable if it takes longer than six years to obtain the patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “issued a significant trade secret remedies decision”;
• a report highlighting a recent Federal Circuit trademark case holding that “acquired distinctiveness is ‘determined on the entire record’”; and
• a piece asserting a recent Federal Circuit trademark decision ”goes beyond financial services and has implications for brands across industries.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Soto v. United States, a veterans case. While no new petitions were filed, one new reply in support of a petition was filed in Celanese International Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case addressing the on-sale bar. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. As for granted petitions, a response brief was filed in a pending en banc case raising questions regarding how to establish standing to allege a violation of a statute or regulation in connection with the procurement of a government contract. As for pending petitions, a new petition has been filed in a patent case; a response has been filed to a petition raising multiple questions regarding patent ownership and a district court’s authority to prohibit parties from sharing part of a claim construction with a jury; and an amicus brief has been filed in support of a petition raising a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article arguing that, because the Supreme Court’s two-step inquiry for patent-ineligible “abstract ideas” did not define “abstract ideas,” it has had “disastrous consequences”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit’s requirement that “convoyed goods ‘function together with the patented article,’ and not merely be sold along with the infringing product as a matter of convenience, differs from the rule followed in the U.K., France, Japan, and Germany”;
• a report highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit case “reaffirmed a critical principle in patent law: When a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication is that they are distinct elements”; and
• a blog post discussing how an en banc case at the Federal Circuit “presents important questions about statutory interpretation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”