FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about the “effect of American Axle on life sciences patents”;
• another article about how attorneys are “watching the upcoming session to assess whether the justices will develop an appetite for patent law”; and
• a blog post about Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case argued earlier this week at the Supreme Court.

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

• a blog post examining “[w]ho appeals (and wins) patent cases”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently ruled that “[e]rrors don’t have to be immediately found in patents” to later render the patent invalid as obvious; and
• another article highlighting how a petitioner in a patent eligibility case “filed a reply brief . . . distancing its petition from that of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.’s, which was denied certiorari on June 30.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, four new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases, a takings case, and a pro se case; reply briefs in support of petitions were submitted in a patent case and a case involving application of the Equal Access to Justice Act; and an amicus brief was filed in a patent case. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post examining how “opinions in regular [Federal Circuit] appeals are more than twice as likely to be precedential than orders” on petitions for mandamus related to venue;
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit over the past decade has adopted more stringent standards for meeting the [Patent Act’s] dictates that patents provide a clear written description, and enable others to understand the invention”; and
• another article discussing how, after the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, “[p]atent eligibility in America is a train wreck.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petition cases, one new petition was filed in a patent case; a waiver of right to respond was filed in a case raising questions about procedure; a brief in opposition was submitted in another patent case; and the Court denied certiorari in two patent cases.

Here is a special report on recent news and commentary related to the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. Today’s report highlights:

• an article discussing how the Supreme Court declined to hear “a case that may have clarified the circumstances under which inventions warrant a patent”;
• another article highlighting how “[a]ttorneys say the denial was particularly frustrating because all parties charged with interpreting this law have said it’s still unclear”; and
• a third article addressing how the denial “leaves it up to Congress and the USPTO to take action to fix some of the unpredictability.”

This morning, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, an important patent eligibility case decided by the Federal Circuit in 2019. In this case, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court grant review to reconsider the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility and to determine whether eligibility is a question of law or fact. The Solicitor General previously recommended the Court grant review to reconsider the first question presented, addressing the appropriate standard for determining eligibility. But today the Court denied the petition.

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 “[f]ewer than 20% of attorneys arguing in front of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2021 were women, according to Bloomberg Law data”;
• a blog post explaining how the Federal Circuit’s high grant rate for mandamus petitions “is driven almost entirely by mandamus petitions in patent infringement cases out of the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas that raise questions about transfer of venue for convenience reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)”; and
• another article discussing how a virtual reality company “has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision upholding the invalidation of its four gaming patents under Alice, amplifying calls for the high court to clarify the two-part patent eligibility test.”

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 a “Federal Circuit panel homed in on the question of how to define ‘inventor’ and ‘individual’ in a test case for artificial intelligence inventorship”;
• another article highlighting how a recent supplemental brief argued that a pending Supreme Court case “will not clarify” questions about Section 101 patent eligibility; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently held that it is not a defense to willful patent infringement when a “district court . . . judicially correct[s] claims when there are ‘obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents’ without changing the scope of the claim.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petition cases, three new petitions were filed with the Court; a reply brief was filed in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and four supplemental briefs were submitted in three patent cases. Here are the details.