FedCircuitBlog

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

• a piece written by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel assessing how, in his view, “patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are not sufficiently dependable”;
• a blog post discussing how a recent Federal Circuit decision “offers a glimpse into the evolving relationship between utility and enablement in patent law”;
• a report providing an overview of the “Federal Circuit’s reversals and vacaturs in 2024 [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] appeals; and
• a blog post examining how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently “overturned an examiner’s rejections of an application directed to a quantum computing invention.”

Three cases being argued next month at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Stupp Corporation v. United States. In it, Stupp Corporation appeals a judgment of the Court of International Trade, which sustained the Department of Commerce’s finding upholding the application of a particular test in the differential pricing analysis to calculate antidumping margins. This is our argument preview.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the other comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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 an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and one nonprecedential order. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a government contract case on appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the order.

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

• a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
• a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
• a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
• an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a trademark case on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and another in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.   

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, one new petition was filed in a patent case presenting questions related to enablement of prior art. The Court also received a brief in opposition in a patent case presenting a question related to the use of Federal Circuit Rule 36 in appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a reply in support of a petition in a trade case, and an amicus brief in another patent case addressing alleged improper application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that claims of a patent asserted by US Synthetic Corp. are patent ineligible and that certain intervening companies, who defend the ITC’s judgment in this appeal, failed to prove lack of enablement of those claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the part of the judgment related to eligibility, affirmed the part of the judgment related to enablement, and remanded the case to the ITC. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. One comes in a government contract case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, one comes in a pro se veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in an appeal from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.