FedCircuitBlog

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, ”[i]f cert is granted, this [patent] case will ask the nation’s highest court to clarify the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112”;
• another article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that inventions were unpatentable “[b]ecause the ‘patents are directed to a natural law together with conventional steps to detect or quantify the manifestation of that law’”; and
• a third article addressing how “[t]he Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision backing a jury’s noninfringement finding in a patent suit against Amazon over diaper-monitoring technology.”

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

• an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s “‘most restrictive patent eligibility decision yet’”;
• another article examining “the most notable trademark decisions so far this year”; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently found that “substantial evidence supported [a] district court’s finding of anticipation” in a patent case.

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

• an article discussing the top patent cases to watch in the second half of 2022;
• another article highlighting how a petition for a writ of certiorari claimed that a Federal Circuit decision “would upend the legal rules governing the modern prescription-drug marketplace”; and
• a third article urging that the question of whether artificial intelligence can be an inventor under patent law “is one for Congress, not the courts, to address.”

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 “[w]ho appeals (and wins) patent cases”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that “[e]rrors don’t have to be immediately found in patents” to later render the patent invalid as obvious; and
• another article highlighting how a petitioner in a patent eligibility case “filed a reply brief . . . distancing its petition from that of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.’s, which was denied certiorari on June 30.”

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

• an article addressing some of “the biggest patent decisions so far this year”;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that an “[a]ttorney improperly represented clients while [he was a] Navy employee”; and
• a blog post noting how “[i]n a new opinion the [Federal Circuit] asked and answered an interesting question: What if most on-point prior art was accidentally created due to a typographical error?” 

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 how “opinions in regular [Federal Circuit] appeals are more than twice as likely to be precedential than orders” on petitions for mandamus related to venue;
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit over the past decade has adopted more stringent standards for meeting the [Patent Act’s] dictates that patents provide a clear written description, and enable others to understand the invention”; and
• another article discussing how, after the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, “[p]atent eligibility in America is a train wreck.”

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, according to recent statistics, “[p]atent owners face a tougher road on appeal than accused defendants and patent challengers”;
• another article addressing how “Coca-Cola Co. saw its trademark tribunal win tossed by a Federal Circuit panel”; and
• a blog post discussing “[l]essons from [the] rejection of Apple’s cert petition against Qualcomm” in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.

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.”