FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post about a Federal Circuit opinion that found a “Scheduling Order . . . went too far in mandating additional substantive discovery and re-briefing” in light of a pending motion to transfer;
• an article about “[t]he fourth round of a multibillion-dollar dispute between Intel and VLSI”; and
• another blog post about how Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC “has the potential of shaking up [patent law’s] disclosure doctrine.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last Friday, the Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case regarding the enablement requirement. In addition, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases; and the Court denied two petitions: one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Notably, Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting from the decision to deny review in the veterans case. Here are the details.

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. 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:

• an article about a supplemental brief filed at the Supreme Court asking the Court to “clarify the proper standard for reviewing questions of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112”;
• another article about a recent ruling by the Federal Circuit that “gives helpful guidance regarding how to defeat early-filed Section 101 patent subject matter eligibility challenges”; and
• a third article about an upcoming Federal Circuit case that will “address some major design patent issues.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case. Additionally, the views of the Solicitor General were submitted in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement. 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:

• an article about the Biden Administration advising the Supreme Court not to review a pharmaceutical patent decision raising questions related to the enablement requirement;
• a second article about the United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s response “to a number of questions surrounding abuse of the inter partes review . . . system”; and
• a third article about “[a] recent district court order punt[ing] concerns about an administrative patent tribunal’s alleged bias to the Federal Circuit.”

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

• an article discussing the top patent cases to watch in the second half of 2022;
• another article highlighting how a petition for a writ of certiorari claimed that a Federal Circuit decision “would upend the legal rules governing the modern prescription-drug marketplace”; and
• a third article urging that the question of whether artificial intelligence can be an inventor under patent law “is one for Congress, not the courts, to address.”

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

• an article interviewing several intellectual property attorneys about the Solicitor General’s brief in in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC;
• another article analyzing how the “Federal Circuit’s opinion and a potential Supreme Court affirmance may have far-reaching implications” in a pending case raising questions about patent law’s enablement requirement; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit recent found that a whiskey bearing a defunct investment firm’s name is likely to confuse customers.