FedCircuitBlog

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 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.”

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

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit recently “established a more rigorous test for determining when a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application can be considered prior art as of its provisional filing date”;
• an article describing how the Federal Circuit recently “upheld a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision to partially cancel trademarks”; and
• a blog post discussing the ongoing dispute between Judge Newman and the Federal Circuit.

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

• a report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
• an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
• a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
• an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”

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 a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive, but it also has unwittingly complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals”;
• a blog post suggesting that, in a recent decision related to agency deference, the Federal Circuit’s “approach to the analysis [was] wrong”;
• a piece reporting how “Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has decided to end all current appointments to both the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effective immediately”; and
• an article suggesting a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “expands which intellectual property (IP) owners can seek relief before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to block the import of infringing products into the U.S.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential order sua sponte granting en banc review of an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. In the order, the Federal Circuit requests new briefing related to the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on the interpretation of statutory provisions governing actions of the Office of Personnel Management. Notably, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which required courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous language in statutes meant for implementation by those agencies. Here is the introduction to the order.

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

• an article reporting how last week in a “rare en banc” oral argument “Google LLC urged ten Federal Circuit judges to wipe out a $20 million Texas patent verdict over smart thermostats, arguing the jury shouldn’t have heard an expert witness’ description of settlements the plaintiff reached with three companies”;
• a blog post explaining how in a recent trademark opinion the Federal Circuit “clarified that terms once considered generic do not necessarily remain permanently unregistrable”;
• a piece claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again”; and
• a report explaining how recently a “patent owner has told the U.S. Supreme Court that there’s momentum behind its push for scrutiny of the Federal Circuit’s one-word orders in patent cases and its challenge to courts’ summary judgment practices in such matters.”

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

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

• an article reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims”;
• a blog post arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
• a piece claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process”; and
• a report explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.”

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

• a blog post arguing that in a recent case “the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages”;
• a piece likening the current U.S. patent system to the Titanic, asserting it is “fast approaching an iceberg with disaster imminent”;
• a report explaining how the Supreme Court recently “declined to hear a patent owner’s challenge of the court’s framework for analyzing potentially abstract ideas not eligible for patent protection”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit “has refused to revisit its decision forcing Teva Pharmaceuticals to delist certain inhaler patents from the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book.”