FedCircuitBlog

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.

Three cases being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases attracted four amicus briefs. That case is Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States. It concerns the federal government’s liability for taking private property. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the conclusion of the Court of Federal Claims that the government’s action was the cause-in-fact of flooding damage and that, as a result, a taking-by-flooding occurred. The government appeals the CFC’s judgment, while Ideker Farms cross-appeals. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and granting a motion to redact aspects of a settlement agreement. Here is text from the order.

One case being argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted two amicus briefs. That case is Behrens v. United States, which concerns a claim the federal government was liable for taking land for public use through the National Trails System Act. Specifically, in this case, the Federal Circuit will review the determination by the Court of Federal Claims that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation because the scope of the easement in question was broad enough to encompass railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are links to the dismissals.

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.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also late yesterday and this morning released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a veterans case and a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case raising a question concerning patent eligibility; and three amicus briefs were filed in support of a petition raising a question related to judicial disqualification. Here are the details.

Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants an unopposed motion to deconsolidate appeals and dismiss an appeal; one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and one vacates an order denying transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Western District of Tennessee and remands the case. Here is text from the orders.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc case raising questions related to whether on-the-job exposure to the recent novel coronavirus entitled federal correctional officers to additional pay pursuant to various federal statutes, the government filed its en banc response brief, and the Federal Circuit scheduled the case for oral argument in December. The court also invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to assignor estoppel and inter partes review estoppel. Finally, the court granted panel rehearing and denied rehearing en banc in response to a petition raising questions related to the process and standard for determining indefiniteness. Here are the details.