FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed the government’s opening brief. As for pending petitions, the United States motioned for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause; the court invited responses to two petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations in patent claims; the court received a response to a petition raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings; and the court received an amicus brief supporting rehearing in one of the petitions raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand to an arbitrator; one dismisses an appeal; and one grants a motion to remand to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is text from the orders.

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

• an article explaining how the Supreme Court is the “only entity that appears positioned to provide . . . clarity” on patent eligibility;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit affirmed the review power of the temporary head of the Patent and Trademark Office, “sparing the agency from potentially devastating consequences”; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that a patentee has “the burden to offer opposing evidence against the petitioner’s claim” in Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today given the Memorial Day holiday.

This week we are previewing oral arguments scheduled for next week at the Federal Circuit in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. Today we highlight Thaler v. Vidal. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue without the assistance of a human inventor. In this case, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, deciding that “an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act.” This is our argument preview.

This week–one year and three weeks after the Supreme Court’s order inviting the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States–the Solicitor General finally filed its amicus brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. In this case, the petitioner long ago requested the Supreme Court grant review to reconsider the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility and to determine whether eligibility is a question of law or fact. This week the Solicitor General recommended the Court grant review to reconsider the first question presented, addressing the appropriate standard for determining eligibility. Here is an update on the case, including a review of the background of the case, a summary of the government’s brief, and a brief discussion of what comes next.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a patent case on remand from the Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed both a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims unpatentable as anticipated and a denial of a request to review the Board’s decision, a denial decided by the Commissioner for Patents given vacancies in the positions of Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

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 government advised the Supreme Court that a pending patent case is a “‘suitable vehicle for providing greater clarity’ on when an invention can be patented”;
• another article addressing the Federal Circuit’s “focus on using mandamus to compel transfer of cases”; and
• a third article explaining how the “Federal Circuit’s newest judge continues to hear Delaware cases” after his promotion.

This morning the Federal Circuit released seven nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to remand to the Western District of Texas; one grants a motion to transfer venue; one grants a motion to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; one transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; one summarily affirms; and two grant motions to dismiss. Here is text from the orders 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, six amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case in support of the petitioner. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case concerning alleged fraud on the court and a pro se veteran’s case; a waiver of a right to respond was filed in the patent case; another waiver of a right to respond was filed in a veterans case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case concerning eligibility; and a petitioner filed a reply in support of a petition in another patent case raising questions about eligibility. Here are the details.