FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article by a former Federal Circuit judge suggesting “[a] bipartisan consensus is quietly emerging in Washington” to “modernize America’s intellectual property system”;
• a report covering how “John A. Squires, President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the US Patent and Trademark Office, was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 20-2 vote”;
• a blog post describing how “the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) posted job openings for patent examiners and trademark examining attorneys on USAJobs.gov,” ending the USPTO’s hiring freeze that was put in place when President Trump took office in January; and
• a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit “stands today with a dramatically different judicial composition than at any point in its 43-year history.”

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary. 

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Both of the precedential opinions came in patent cases, where one was appealed from a district court and the other appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two were appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, while one was appealed from a district court in a false advertising case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonpreceential order dismissing an appeal in a patent case. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion affirming a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and one nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the Trademark trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One transfers a case, and one dismisses an appeal. Notably, in the third order, the Federal Circuit adopted a briefing schedule and set oral argument for July 31 in the case challenging President Trump’s tariffs. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the order in the tariff case and links to the transfer and dismissals.

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

• a report covering how the Federal Circuit “agreed on Tuesday to allow President Trump to maintain many of his tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, extending a pause granted shortly after another panel of judges ruled in late May that the import taxes were illegal”;
• an article describing how “President Donald Trump on Wednesday hailed a favorable decision by [the Federal Circuit] over his sweeping tariff policy as a ‘great’ win for the United States”;
• a piece addressing how “[t]he typically apolitical and staid US Patent and Trademark Office has been swept up in the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the federal workforce”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]he Trump Administration’s nominee for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director, John Squires, has submitted written responses for the record following his May 21 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee”; and
• an article highlighting how “[t]he acting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director’s decision on Friday to reject patent challenges due to the petitioner’s longstanding knowledge of a patent has many attorneys bracing for either a massive rise or dip in Patent Trial and Appeal Board filings.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three opinions in patent cases appealed from the Eastern District of Texas. Two were precedential and one was nonprecedential. The precedential opinions address subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action and patent eligibility, respectively. The nonprecedential opinion addresses patent eligibility. Notably, all three opinions address patents asserted by United Services Automobile Association, and the two opinions addressing eligibility invalidate the asserted patents. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. Here are the details.

In late April, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Marmen Inc. v. United States, a case we’ve been tracking because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, Marmen appealed a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained a final determination by the Department of Commerce of a 4.94% dumping margin for utility-scale wind towers from Canada. In an opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Taranto and Chen, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our opinion summary.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted petitions, there has been no new activity since our last post. With respect to pending petitions, one new petition was filed in a patent case; two waivers of right to respond to petitions were filed in patent cases; a new brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and the Court denied two petitions, one in a patent case and one in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. As we separately noted, in one of these orders the en banc Federal Circuit stayed the Court of International Trade’s injunctions of President Trump’s tariffs. In yesterday’s other two nonprecedential orders, the court dismissed appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, in which the court affirmed two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the nonprecedential opinion, the court dismissed a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders (other than yesterday’s en banc order, which can be found here) and links to the dismissals.