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 the Fifth Circuit “said it would ‘continue to disagree with the Federal Circuit’ over whether it has appellate jurisdiction over” appeals of Walker Process patent fraud cases;
• a blog post highlighting how patent law’s “defense of assignor estoppel has been in flux”; and
• a third article detailing how Koss Corp. is “vying to save one of its patents for wireless earphones and headphones that has been at the center of its infringement suits against Apple Inc. over its AirPods wireless earbuds.”

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] recent ruling opened the door for an administrative patent tribunal to wipe out certain Federal Circuit decisions, which may entice the full federal appeals court to grant a rare re-hearing request”;
• another article addressing “steps to secure and safeguard US patents for AI-assisted inventions” following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Thaler v. Vidal; and
• a third article asserting that “[i]nventors who revise a patent to overcome an examiner’s finding that the claims are not patent-eligible cannot later walk back those changes through the reissue process.”

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

• an article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that “[a]rtificially intelligent machines cannot be named inventors on patents”;
• a blog post similarly discussing that, “for the purposes of patent law, an inventor must be human”; and
• another article arguing that a Federal Circuit holding addressing patent law’s written description requirement, if allowed to stand, “threatens to remove the patent system’s incentives to innovation.” 

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

• an article discussing a “bill introduced Tuesday by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., aimed at setting more precise rules on which inventions are eligible for patents”;
• another article explaining how the bill “clearly is intended to overrule” the Supreme Court’s recent cases addressing patent eligibility;
• a blog post addressing how “the PTO [will] be revisiting the test for patent subject matter eligibility”; and
• an article discussing a case before the Federal Circuit that involves “a shoemaking process with major implications for both the industry and patent law.”

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 many patent lawyers “interviewed . . . by The Texas Lawbook said that it is a mistake and miscarriage of justice to strip patent cases away from Judge Albright”;
• a blog post addressing how the “prior art history [of diagnostic patents] is irreconcilable with” a Federal Circuit panel’s conclusion that the patents are ineligible; and
• another article explaining how U.S. Senator “Tillis [plans] to introduce 101 reform legislation within weeks.”

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 a “[f]ederal judge sitting atop mound of patent litigation loses perch with equitable-distribution order”;
• another article addressing how “Netflix [won] attorneys’ fees for California litigation at Federal Circuit”;
• a third article discussing how an engineer filed an amicus brief critiquing a Federal Circuit decision that would allegedly “let federal agencies ‘cut corners’ and render public accountability ‘superfluous.’”

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.”