FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article indicating some “[t]rade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration” in President Trump’s tariff case “are 70%-80%”;
• an article discussing how the Trump Administration might turn to the “Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act” if the Supreme Court rules against it;
• a blog post arguing a recent petition at the Supreme Court “raises serious concerns as to fundamental principles of patent law, especially relating to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112”; and
• an article suggesting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “ceremonially signed two patents on technology generally considered not patentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act and then issued an appeals review panel decision . . . faulting the idea that artificial intelligence and machine learning are per se unpatentable.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two opinions, one precedential and one nonprecedential. The precedential opinion comes in a trade case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from a district court. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The precedential opinion comes in an appeal of a denial of a petition for rulemaking to establish criteria to limit the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to institute inter partes or post-grant review under the America Invents Act. The nonprecedential opinion comes in an appeal from a series of inter partes review proceedings decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

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

• an article arguing “the legal case against the Trump tariffs is strong”;
• a blog post indicating there has been a trend of “increased willingness of the Federal Circuit to reject jury verdicts, especially in situations involving potentially inadequate expert testimony”;
• an article reporting how, “[o]n the same day the federal government shut down, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would permanently close its Rocky Mountain Regional Outreach Office in Denver”; and
• an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Patent and Trademark Office laid off some employees . . . affecting around 1% of the agency’s workforce.”

As we have been reporting this week, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., a patent case. C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. appeal numerous rulings by a district court, including rulings concerning patent eligibility, definiteness, and anticipation. This is our argument preview.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. One of the opinions comes in a patent case appealed from a district court, while the other comes in an taking case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions along with links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, there is no new activity in granted cases. With respect to petitions, four new petitions have been filed. Two petitions present questions related to Federal Circuit Rule 36, while two were filed in pro se cases. In addition, three new briefs in opposition and three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed. Here are the details.

As we have been reporting, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit this month attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Entropic Communications, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc. In this patent case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene and unseal judicial records. This is our argument preview.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an appeal from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses substitute claims, and in particular whether they satisfy the written description requirement and the non-obviousness requirement. Here is the introduction to the opinion.