FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in government contract cases, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Additionally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgements.

• Patenting Software-Related Inventions Is Getting Easier – Experts analyze Federal Circuit precedent and USPTO guidance to advance two recommendations for IP practitioners with regard to ensuring patent eligibility of inventions directed to software-related technologies.
• CAFC Reverses In-Part, Vacates In-Part PTAB Patentability Finding for Skin Cancer Detection Device – The Federal Circuit used an obviousness analysis and ruled that the PTAB erred in holding that patent claims directed at a skin cancer detection device were patentable.
• Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Decision Blocking Poultry Chiller Patent Suit Due to Equitable Intervening Rights – For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the “boundaries of the phrase ‘protection of investments’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 252”, which outlines the effect of reissued patents.

Here’s the latest.

On Monday, March 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched patent case, United States v. Arthrex. As we previewed a couple days prior to argument, two main issues were considered by the Court. First, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are principal or inferior officers. And second, if APJs are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. New petitions were filed in two patent cases raising questions related to claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents. The court also denied seven petitions in patent cases raising questions related to Rule 36 judgments, injunctive relief, claim construction, awards of attorneys’ fees, eligible subject matter, deference to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, standing, inter partes review, and enablement. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case, reversing a district court’s judgment on indefiniteness. Additionally, the Federal Circuit issued two Rule 36 judgments. The introduction to the opinion and links to the Rule 36 judgments can be found here.

As we have been reporting, the Federal Circuit this month is hearing oral arguments in three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In a tax case, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Circuit heard argument Monday related to a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade that regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury to curtail “double drawback” (two tax refunds for the same exported merchandise) are invalid. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit issued precedential opinions in two patent cases, the first addressing infringement, enablement, damages, and willfulness, and the second addressing sanctions. The court also issued a nonprecedential opinion in another patent case, this opinion addressing motions to exclude expert testimony. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning the Federal Circuit announced that an updated edition of the court’s rules are available on the court’s website. Here is the text of today’s announcement.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a much-anticipated patent case, United States v. Arthrex, Inc. The first issue for consideration by the Court is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal or inferior officers. The second issue is, if administrative patent judges are indeed principal officers, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect through the remedy it provided. This is our argument preview.