FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how the “Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on” the Federal Circuit;
• an article covering how the Supreme Court denied Judge “Newman’s petition for review without comment, as is typical”;
• an article reporting how late last week the Federal Circuit ruled the “U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February”; and
• an article similarly highlighting how Federal Circuit “extended its block on ​a lower court ruling against the Trump ‌administration’s 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act”;

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post reporting how the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a reply brief at the Supreme Court on behalf of Judge Newman;
• a blog post highlighting how “a unanimous court rejected the idea that a generics pharmaceutical manufacturer . . . can be held responsible for infringements of patents held by the branded manufacturer . . . based on the decisions of doctors and pharmacies to use the generic compound for patented uses of the drug”;
• a blog post explaining how, when “[c]onfronted with four patents drawn to the same basic invention, the Federal Circuit held one group of claims ineligible and a second group eligible”; and
• a blog post discussing how “more than a dozen patent matters now sit before the [Supreme] Court.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting how the “Trump administration said it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court”;
• a blog post discussing how the “Solicitor General has now filed the government’s brief in opposition in Hyatt v. Squires, . . . urging the Supreme Court to leave the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine undisturbed”;
• a blog post suggesting a patent case pending in Texas “is notable” given the patent owner’s argument “that as a matter of law ongoing infringement constitutes irreparable harm, because . . . federal courts are obligated to apply the law of equity as it would have been understood” as of 1789; and
• an article explaining the Federal Circuit’s decision not to hold oral arguments in August is “because infrastructure work is being done on its courthouse.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. We highlight:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court’s decision “may make generic drugmakers less vulnerable to patent ‌lawsuits involving so-called ‘skinny labels’”;
• an article similarly reporting how the Supreme Court’s decision “is expected to strengthen legal protections for generic manufacturers that launch products using the Hatch-Waxman Act’s ‘carve-out’ process”;
• a blog post suggesting the Supreme Court’s decision “scolded” the Federal Circuit “for its recent approach” and “has potentially far-reaching implications for the induced infringement standard across sectors”; and
• an article emphasizing that “all nine justices” joined Justice Jackson’s opinion in this “closely watched pharmaceutical patent dispute.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting that, “when the PTAB reverses a [35 U.S.C.] § 101 rejection out of Art Unit 3662, it is worth a look to see what went right for the Applicant”;
• an article reporting how “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office data indicates the office mistakenly kept hundreds of thousands of records of patent ownership transfers from becoming public for years”;
• an article observing that Chief Judge “Moore . . . retained a PR firm to publicize a cartoon theme song that she apparently commissioned”; and
• an article indicating a “‘flood’ of lawsuits against Section 122 tariffs . . . is seen as unlikely.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article reporting “tips and stories during a day with the judges” at this year’s Federal Circuit Judicial Conference;
• an article criticizing the Federal Circuit’s recently released video as a “theme song” that is both “embarrassing and damning”;
• an article noting how “District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas [announced he] would leave the Western Texas bench by the end of this August”; and
• a blog post arguing that “[t]he IPR system, at least in its original form as a cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, is functionally suspended.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented”;
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface”; and
• an article explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade”;
• an article reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
• a blog post highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed”; and
• an article analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a piece outlining factors “behind the Patent Office head’s recent refusal to have the agency institute certain proceedings”;
• an article discussing two recent decisions that “show how parties can navigate the draconian effect of an exclusion order by pursuing the simultaneous paths of a Federal Circuit appeal and ancillary proceedings” at the International Trade Commission and before U.S. Customs & Border Protection “to adjudicate a design-around”;
• a blog post highlighting how a recent filing “shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice”; and
• an article examining “the Federal Circuit’s evolving view of two key trade secrets issues: (1) whether information was readily ascertainable and therefore not a trade secret; and (2) how and when plaintiffs must sufficiently define their trade secrets.”

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit’s application of the judicial exceptions to patentability for software patents “has resembled less a coherent legal standard and more a series of freely-improvised opinions”;
• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “composition of matter claims covering engineered cells containing DNA from two different organisms chemically spliced together are not patent-ineligible natural phenomena”;
• a blog post addressing how the repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) “left an open question that the patent bar has been debating for more than a decade: can incorrect inventorship still be raised as a defense in patent litigation?”; and
• a blog post exploring a recent Federal Circuit decision in which the court “couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license” because the parties had not adequately briefed whether a federal statute created “a private property right.”