FedCircuitBlog

This month we highlight three papers exploring research related to the Federal Circuit.

• Eligible Subject Matter at the Patent Office: An Empirical Study of the Influence of Alice on Patent Examiners and Patent Applicants by Professors Jay P. Kesan and Runhua Wang
• Law, Fact, and Patent Validity by Professor Paul R. Gugliuzza
• Year in Review: The Federal Circuit’s 2019 Government Contract Law Decisions by Nathaniel Castellano

The Federal Circuit announced today that it is proposing a large number of stylistic and substantive amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice. The court has asked for comments from the public on the proposed amendments. If adopted, the amendments will be effective starting July 1, 2020. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two opinions: one precedential opinion in a patent case and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated a judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding unanimously that trademark owners do not have to show an infringer’s willfulness as a precondition to a profits award. In an April report, Adjusting to Alice, the USPTO claims that the guidance it provided after the Alice decision decreased the unpredictability of patent examination. On Law.com, Scott Graham suggests that the Federal Circuit could soon reconsider its decision in Arista Networks v. Cisco Systems.

Today the Supreme Court issued its decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., ruling that trademark owners need not prove willfulness to disgorge infringers’ profits. Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for the Court, which vacated and remanded a contrary decision by the Federal Circuit. Justice Gorsuch’s opinion was joined by every member of the Court except Justice Sotomayor. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued three opinions: one precedential opinion in a patent case; one precedential opinion in a tax case; and one nonprecedential opinion in a takings case. 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. Parties filed new petitions in two cases. Several amici filed amicus briefs in Baley v. United States.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one precedential opinion in a takings case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include new petitions filed in six cases raising questions relating to design patent claim construction, damages, claim construction, eligibility, inequitable conduct, non-obviousness, joinder, and deference to Precedential Opinion Panels; three requests for responses to petitions raising questions related to venue, eligibility, non-obviousness, and claim construction; and the denial of six petitions raising issues including the Appointments Clause, claim construction, prosecution history estoppel, and damages. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases and one nonprecedential erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the text of the erratum.