FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “plan for using AI at the agency to speed up the process of granting patents” expects artificial intelligence vendors “to be paid in exposure rather than cold hard cash”;
• a piece discussing how the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office “has . . . held that patent owners eventually have the right to assume their patents won’t be challenged in inter partes reviews”;
• a report highlighting how “[a] coalition of tech, auto, and manufacturing companies” urged the Federal Circuit “to support a software company’s challenge to a Trump administration policy change at the US Patent and Trademark Office”; and
• a post examining how “predictive analytics firm Recentive” argues “the Federal Circuit’s decision to eliminate all patent protection for novel machine learning applications using established models . . . chills U.S. innovation [in] an incredibly important area of emerging technology.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. One of the opinions came in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The other opinion came in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

On June 4, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., a patent case we have been watching because it attracted an amicus brief. In it, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals appealed a judgment of a district court based on the argument that the court made an error in claim construction. Judge Taranto authored the opinion for the panel. Joined by Judges Chen and Hughes, the opinion explains why the Federal Circuit found no error in the district court’s claim construction and affirmed the district court’s judgment. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion vacating and remanding a judgment in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also released a nonprecedential order granting an unopposed motion by the Patent and Trademark Office to remand a case back to the agency to reconsider rejections of patent claims. Lastly, the court released two nonprecedential orders transferring cases, one in a civil rights case appealed from the Southern District of Florida and now transferred to the Eleventh Circuit, and one in a disability discrimination case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and now transferred to the District of Columbia. Here are the introductions to the opinion and first order and links to the orders transferring cases.

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

• an article describing how “the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is going all-in on generative artificial intelligence solutions to help improve its business operations”;
• a piece examining a recent precedential Federal Circuit holding that “inter partes review estoppel does not extend to arguments that the claimed invention is invalid because it was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]housands of disabled veterans could be eligible for additional retroactive combat-related special compensation after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that federal officials had unfairly capped those payments.”

On June 12, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Soto v. United States, a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court granted review to consider whether a statutory provision governing Combat-Related Special Compensation, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, provides a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act. According to the Federal Circuit, “the Barring Act applies to settlement claims” regarding Combat-Related Special Compensation and, as a result, “the six-year statute of limitations contained in the Barring Act applies to CRSC settlement claims.” The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reversed. According to the Court, “[t]he CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.” This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Today, the Federal Circuit has not released any opinions or orders given the Juneteenth holiday. Here is a link to yesterday’s dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted petitions, last week the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the last remaining case this term that had been decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to pending petitions, two new petitions were filed in patent cases. The Court also denied two petitions, one raising a question related to patents and one raising questions relating to government contracts. Here are the details.

In late May, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., a trademark case we’ve been tracking because it attracted two amicus briefs. In this case, Curtin appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss her opposition after concluding she was not statutorily entitled to oppose a registration. In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judges Taranto and Barnett, the Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying decision. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and one errata. In the precedential opinion, the court dismissed an appeal from the International Trade Commission for lack of jurisdiction. Both of the nonprecedential opinions were appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following inter partes review proceedings. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and errata.