FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post about “an appellate court ruling that many believe will be very damaging to the United States’ life sciences innovation sector”;
• an article about how “US Patent and Trademark Office rules for reducing the term of a patent survived a challenge at the Federal Circuit”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit recently “affirmed the constitutionality of the [manner of appointment of the] Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges.”

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”

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

• an article about a petition for certiorari regarding a Federal Circuit decision addressing patent infringement and “skinny labels” on generic medications;
• another article about “[t]he Federal Circuit reviv[ing] patent licensing company Uniloc’s cases against Google”; and
• a third article about a Federal Circuit oral argument concerning “a Google patent application for parental control content filters.”

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. 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 about two recent rulings by the Federal Circuit that may “dent the number of Section 101 motions to dismiss that courts fully or partially grant each year”;
• another article about a Federal Circuit case that would “clear the way for a proposed generic” opioid drug; and
• a blog post about a decision in which the Federal Circuit held “the definition of a claim term in a patent incorporated by reference into the patents at issue does not dictate the definition of claims in the asserted patents.”

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit decision “vacat[ing] two separate preliminary injunction orders . . . against hoverboard products;”
• an article about amicus briefs supporting a petition for certiorari asking “the U.S. Supreme Court to do away with the Federal Circuit precedent barring infringement suits on patents the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has invalidated;” and
• another article about the “impact of Judge Garcia’s order” on the number of patent case filings in the Western District of Texas.

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

• an article about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee”;
• a blog post about a Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit suggesting the Federal Circuit should go en banc more often to clarify patent eligibility law; and
• another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.”

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

• an article about the Federal Circuit denying a request for a rehearing in a case about whether “an artificial intelligence program” may be named an inventor; and
• another article about “[a] congressional push to let drug companies patent diagnostic tests and other biotech inventions” and its potential impact.

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

• a blog post about a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning patent eligibility and how it allegedly distinguishes between collection of information and use of information;
• an article about another Federal Circuit decision concerning patent eligibility concluding that “two IBM patents directed to technology that allows users to select and view results on a map were directed to ineligible subject matter”; and
• another article about the Federal Circuit “affirm[ing] a lower court decision to dismiss [a] . . . lawsuit seeking damages” for revocation of a payout from a “government fund for victims of state-sponsored terrorism.”

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

• a blog post indicating the Second Circuit signaled agreement with Eighth and Third Circuits with regard to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction;
• an article about “[t]he Federal Circuit rescu[ing] two patents that a lower court canceled in an inventor’s infringement lawsuit against Google LLC”; and
• another article about the Supreme Court “lift[ing] a stay blocking Gilenya generics from launching in the U.S.”