FedCircuitBlog

Here is a special report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court declined to hear “a case that may have clarified the circumstances under which inventions warrant a patent”;
• another article highlighting how “[a]ttorneys say the denial was particularly frustrating because all parties charged with interpreting this law have said it’s still unclear”; and
• a third article addressing how the denial “leaves it up to Congress and the USPTO to take action to fix some of the unpredictability.”

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

• an article highlighting how the Supreme Court yesterday denied Apple’s petition for writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.;
• another article discussing how “two cases signal that the Federal Circuit and district courts are moving toward explicitly recognizing that parties to a mandatory arbitration clause can bargain away the right to file for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”; and
• a blog post addressing how a flip in a recent Federal Circuit decision “appears to be the consequence of a change in panel composition.”

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 “[a]n unusual Federal Circuit decision has given generic drugmakers a new way to successfully challenge pharmaceutical patents with specific types of claims”;
• another article explaining how “the broader context of [Thaler v. Vidal] can provide strategic guidance for future AI litigation matters”; and
• a third article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a “$2.75 [billion] damages award because [the] judge’s wife owned stock.”

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

• a blog post examining “whether, when it comes to questions about patent venue, the Federal Circuit is really in the pocket of big tech”;
• another blog post highlighting how, “[i]n a far cry from usual textualism,” the Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision in a veterans case; and
• an article discussing an en banc petition that argues that “a recent split Federal Circuit panel decision gives the Patent Trial and Appeal Board the improper authority to overturn circuit court decisions.”

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

• an article highlighting how “[f]ewer than 20% of attorneys arguing in front of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2021 were women, according to Bloomberg Law data”;
• a blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit’s high grant rate for mandamus petitions “is driven almost entirely by mandamus petitions in patent infringement cases out of the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that raise questions about transfer of venue for convenience reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)”; and
• another article discussing how a virtual reality company “has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision upholding the invalidation of its four gaming patents under Alice, amplifying calls for the high court to clarify the two-part patent eligibility test.”

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 Federal Circuit affirmed a decision that “an Italian company can’t register a ‘Parma Coffee’ trademark because it primarily refers to a product’s point of origin”;
• another article addressing how Apple called the Solicitor General’s brief a “‘regrettable disregard’ of high court precedent” in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.; and
• a third article explaining how the Federal Circuit decided a “Delaware federal judge misconstrued part of UMass’ skin-cream patents when it found them invalid last year.”

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 a “Federal Circuit panel homed in on the question of how to define ‘inventor’ and ‘individual’ in a test case for artificial intelligence inventorship”;
• another article highlighting how a recent supplemental brief argued that a pending Supreme Court case “will not clarify” questions about Section 101 patent eligibility; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently held that it is not a defense to willful patent infringement when a “district court . . . judicially correct[s] claims when there are ‘obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents’ without changing the scope of the claim.”

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

• an article examining how the Federal Circuit affirms “[n]early 73%” of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions; 
• another article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently clarified the analysis of intrinsic evidence for allegedly indefinite claim terms; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit revived hundreds of lawsuits by plaintiffs who “say the Army Corps of Engineers temporarily took their property by releasing water from two dams.”

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

• an article interviewing several intellectual property attorneys about the Solicitor General’s brief in in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC;
• another article analyzing how the “Federal Circuit’s opinion and a potential Supreme Court affirmance may have far-reaching implications” in a pending case raising questions about patent law’s enablement requirement; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit recent found that a whiskey bearing a defunct investment firm’s name is likely to confuse customers.

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

• an article explaining how the Supreme Court is the “only entity that appears positioned to provide . . . clarity” on patent eligibility;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit affirmed the review power of the temporary head of the Patent and Trademark Office, “sparing the agency from potentially devastating consequences”; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that a patentee has “the burden to offer opposing evidence against the petitioner’s claim” in Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings.