FedCircuitBlog

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Thaler v. Vidal, a patent case we have been watching because it attracted amicus briefs. On appeal, Thaler sought review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an inventor under the Patent Act. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Stark and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court. This is our opinion summary.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential opinion in another veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

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 “[a] recent ruling opened the door for an administrative patent tribunal to wipe out certain Federal Circuit decisions, which may entice the full federal appeals court to grant a rare re-hearing request”;
• another article addressing “steps to secure and safeguard US patents for AI-assisted inventions” following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Thaler v. Vidal; and
• a third article asserting that “[i]nventors who revise a patent to overcome an examiner’s finding that the claims are not patent-eligible cannot later walk back those changes through the reissue process.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; the second comes in a patent case on remand from the Supreme Court; and the third comes in another patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in another trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade; the second and third come from two veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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 since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a takings case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case and a veterans case; and three amicus briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to reject reissue claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to the written description requirement. The court also received two amicus briefs supporting rehearing in the same case. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board and a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders. One denies a writ of mandamus seeking disqualification of the district court judge; one denies a writ of mandamus to transfer an appeal from the Western District of Texas to the District of Massachusetts. Here are the introductions to the opinions and 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 addressing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that “[a]rtificially intelligent machines cannot be named inventors on patents”;
• a blog post similarly discussing that, “for the purposes of patent law, an inventor must be human”; and
• another article arguing that a Federal Circuit holding addressing patent law’s written description requirement, if allowed to stand, “threatens to remove the patent system’s incentives to innovation.”