Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights a note on the USPTO urging en banc review in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, an article weighing in on a recent dissent by Judge Newman to a denial of en banc rehearing, a discussion of a request for attorneys’ fees by Microsoft in an appeal against Uniloc 2017, and a comment on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in a life sciences case.
As a reminder, once a month we provide an update on activity in patent cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these patent cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. (There we also highlight non-patent cases that attract amicus brief, but only once those cases have been scheduled for oral argument.) Today, with respect to these patent cases, we highlight one new opinion, briefing in five cases, and a recent oral argument.
Every month here at Fed Circuit Blog we highlight recent scholarship related to the Federal Circuit and the law under its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction, of course, includes patent law, but also many other areas of law. This month we highlight three articles, two in the field of patent law and one in the field of takings law. The patent law articles address, respectively, the role of the United States Solicitor General vis-à-vis the Patent Office in formulating patent policy, and whether intellectual property licenses act as a “tax” that limits access to technology assets. The takings law article takes a fresh look at the law governing alleged physical takings.
Today the Federal Circuit issued, but did not publish on its website, two important nonprecedential orders in patent and trademark cases. These orders represent the continuing fall out from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that the Secretary of Commerce’s appointment of Administrative Patent Judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Hat tip to Sharon Israel at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. for alerting us about these orders.
Last week the Federal Circuit heard three cases that attracted amicus briefs. In the last of these three cases, American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States, the American Institute for International Steel (and its co-appellants) presented two questions to the Federal Circuit related to the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As we noted in our argument preview, these questions ask whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative authority to the President. Last Friday, the parties presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Taranto, Stoll, and Schall. Here is our recap of those arguments.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report includes highlights of amicus briefs filed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., a report on oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., and a comment on the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in five petitions related to patent eligibility.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the Court is considering whether, to recover a trademark infringer’s profit, a trademark owner must prove that the infringer infringed willfully. Here is our argument recap.