FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit judges investigating Judge Newman’s fitness asked “a Washington, D.C. federal court late on Friday to dismiss Newman’s lawsuit challenging the unusual probe”;
• an article discussing the argument by the special committee investigating Judge Newman that “the internal actions of the three-judge special committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit aren’t subject to judicial review”;
• an analysis of pending legislation entitled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, which according to former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel “would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications”; and
• a blog post taking the position “that gen-AI tools will face high patent eligibility obstacles absent inclusion of strong technical implementation details placed at least within the specification, but more likely within the claims themselves.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders: one denies a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order a district court to transfer a case, and another grants a motion to dismiss. Here is the introduction to the denial and a link to the dismissal.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene eight panels to consider 41 cases. Of these 41 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 27. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case. The opinion addresses arguments about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s construction of a claim term and the Board’s denial of a motion to amend claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing different groups who “weighed in at the Federal Circuit on a legal campaign coming from a rival of General Motors that aims to change how courts make decisions about design patents”; and
• an article highlighting a Federal Circuit decision “regarding how Patent Term Adjustment interacts with terminal disclaimers and obviousness-type double patenting.”

On Monday, the Federal circuit issued its opinion in In re Cellect, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidating Cellect’s patents under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. In an opinion by Judge Lourie joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In particular, the court held that “ODP for a patent that has received [Patent Term Adjustment], regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” This is our opinion summary.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. The court did not release any opinions or orders this morning on its website. Here is the link to the dismissal.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, an amicus brief was filed in support of petitioner in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed in a veterans case, a patent case, and a pro se case. Additionally, two reply briefs were filed in two different cases, one concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade and one concerning patent eligibility. Here are the details.

As we mentioned yesterday, two cases being argued in September at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is W. J. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims upholding a special master’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Notably, in this pro se case, the Federal Circuit appointed amicus curiae to file a brief and argue on behalf of the appellant. This is our argument preview. 

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions and one nonprecedential order. One opinion addresses an argument that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board adopted erroneous constructions of claim terms. Another opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment holding claims invalid for lack of eligibility. The final opinion, also from a patent case, addresses the enforceability of an arbitration agreement and a finding of indefiniteness. The nonprecedential order grants a voluntary dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.