FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to transfers of cases and the ability of a Federal Circuit panel to nullify or render advisory an earlier judgment of the court. The court also received a response to a petition raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Thaler v. Vidal, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue in the case. On appeal, Thaler seeks 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. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.  

Yesterday the Federal Circuit issued a Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments. Notably, the revised protocols include expanded testing documentation options available to counsel and attendees. Here is the full text of the announcement.

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 Federal Circuit affirmed a decision that “an Italian company can’t register a ‘Parma Coffee’ trademark because it primarily refers to a product’s point of origin”;
• another article addressing how Apple called the Solicitor General’s brief a “‘regrettable disregard’ of high court precedent” in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.; and
• a third article explaining how the Federal Circuit decided a “Delaware federal judge misconstrued part of UMass’ skin-cream patents when it found them invalid last year.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. Finally, the Federal Circuit released two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and the fourth comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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 “Federal Circuit panel homed in on the question of how to define ‘inventor’ and ‘individual’ in a test case for artificial intelligence inventorship”;
• another article highlighting how a recent supplemental brief argued that a pending Supreme Court case “will not clarify” questions about Section 101 patent eligibility; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently held that it is not a defense to willful patent infringement when a “district court . . . judicially correct[s] claims when there are ‘obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents’ without changing the scope of the claim.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. Notably, Judge Chen filed an opinion with additional views expressing concern that the majority decided a prior case and the case at issue incorrectly under Supreme Court precedent. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential opinions in veterans cases appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order, a Rule 36 judgment, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgment and erratum.

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 petition cases, three new petitions were filed with the Court; a reply brief was filed in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and four supplemental briefs were submitted in three patent cases. Here are the details.