FedCircuitBlog

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bufkin v. McDonough, a veterans case. In it, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must “ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1),” which directs that court to “take due account” of the application of that rule. This is our argument recap.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and five nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an international trade dispute. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case. One of the nonprecedential orders grants a motion for summary affirmance, while two of the orders transfer cases. The remaining two orders are dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders, plus links to the dismissals.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit announced that the American Inn of Court focused on intellectual property law in Charlotte, North Carolina held a naming ceremony honoring Judge Stoll at its first inaugural meeting on Thursday, September 26. The announcement noted that Chief Judge Moore, Judge Prost, and Judge Cunningham attended the ceremony. Here is the full text of yesterday’s announcement.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new amicus briefs supporting a petition raising questions regarding the written description requirement and obvious-type double patenting. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing raising questions about inducement of infringement and skinny-labeling. Here are the details.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential orders. The orders are all dismissals, which we link here.

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

• an article discussing how the “Supreme Court weighed oral arguments” last week “in a case over how a century-old law is applied to decide Department of Veterans Affairs benefits when there is an equal balance of evidence to support or deny a disability claim”;
• an article that provides “an overview of the current state” of obviousness-type double patenting in light of recent Federal Circuit decisions;
• an article reporting how “[t]he deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) updated subject matter eligibility guidance” has passed and how the majority of submissions “overwhelmingly call for more detail in the guidance in order to avoid undue restrictions on patentability of critical artificial intelligence (AI) technologies”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision that addressed the argument that “claim construction is improper at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions and a nonprecedential order. Both of the opinions affirm decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The order is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

Last night and today, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, four nonprecedential opinions, and two summary affirmances. The precedential opinions come in a patent case and a government contract case. The nonprecedential orders are all dismissals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and summary affirmances.

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

• an article highlighting seven Federal Circuit decisions from August, which “provided some helpful clarity on [obviousness-type double patenting], written description, indefiniteness, and the support needed for an exceptional case finding”;
• an article discussing how the Supreme Court has “denied yet another petition for writ of certiorari seeking clarity on the patent eligibility of claims covering improvements to computer technologies under 35 U.S.C. § 101”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent en banc petition the author says “highlights the tension between judicial efficiency and the court’s constitutional duty to independently review agency actions.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., a patent case that attracted four amicus briefs. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding, which found all challenged patent claims unpatentable. The argument focused on the fourth issue presented, “whether the Board erred in determining that . . . a published and later abandoned U.S. patent application . . . can be applied in an IPR as a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).” That statutory subsection says that “a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent . . . only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” What the appellant and one amicus brief argue is that a patent application that never issues as a patent is not a patent nor does it qualify as a printed publication when its publication date is after the effective filing date of the patent subject to the inter partes review proceeding. Judge Lourie, Prost, and Stark heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.