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 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.

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 George v. McDonough, a case addressing veterans law. While no new petitions have been filed, the Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a case concerning patent law’s enablement requirement. Additionally, two waivers of right to respond and a reply brief were filed in other patent cases. Moreover, two amicus briefs were submitted this past week: one in a patent case raising questions related to enhanced damages and one in a veterans case involving the Equal Access to Justice Act. Finally, the Court denied certiorari in two cases brought by pro se petitioners. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four precedential opinions. The first comes in a government contract case appealed from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The other three come in trade cases appealed from the Court of International Trade. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions, one in a trade case and the other in a patent case. Finally, the court released a nonprecedential order, a Rule 36 judgment, and an erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in George v. McDonough, which concerns the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of veterans’ claims. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a case presenting a question related to Article III standing for patent licensees; a brief in opposition was submitted in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and reply briefs were filed in two patent cases: one raising questions related to inter partes review and one raising questions concerning enablement. Here are the details.