FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 summary affirmance. The opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a government procurement contract. One order grants a motion to withdraw a petition for review, and the two remaining orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order granting the motion, and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. 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 highlighting five important Federal Circuit rulings so far in 2023;
• a blog post contemplating the idea of intellectual property rights for “AI creations”; and
• an article for discussing the impact of the recent precedential Federal Circuit decision in a patent case addressing obviousness.

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 impact of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• a blog post highlighting the “Supreme Court’s [n]on-[e]ngagement with the Federal Circuit” in Amgen v. Sanofi; and
• an article analyzing two recent appeals concerning the constitutionality of state laws “that target companies that generate revenue through patent licensing and infringement litigation rather than producing protected inventions.”

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

• an article commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi concerning patent law’s enablement requirement;
• an article highlighting the Biden administration urging the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in Apple v. Caltech, a case presenting a question about inter partes review estoppel;
• a post noting the effects of the Federal Circuit’s holding addressing inducement of infringement by so-called skinny labels in Teva v. GlaxoSmithKline after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case; and
• an article arguing the recent precedential opinion by the Federal Circuit in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals addressing a limit on what qualifies as analogous prior art “adds to [the] toolbox for patentee prosecution and litigation success.”

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

• an article and a blog post commenting on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi; and
• two articles providing updates on the ongoing proceedings concerning Judge Newman’s competency to serve as a judge on the Federal Circuit.

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 issued its opinion yesterday in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, one in a trade case, one in an employment case, and three in pro se cases. Three briefs in opposition were filed, two in veterans cases and one in a patent case. Two waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case. And, finally, four petitions were denied, three in patent cases and in one pro se case. Here are the details.

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case that presented the Court with the opportunity to decide “whether 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.’” In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment of invalidity and found a patent “specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims.” Justice Gorsuch authored the Court’s opinion. This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion and a nonprecedential order. In the opinion, the court affirmed a judgment of the District of New Jersey in a patent case. In the order, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the dismissal.

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 the oral argument in the Supreme Court case Amgen v. Sanofi;
• an article about “Centripetal Networks LLC urg[ing] the Federal Circuit to stop a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal’s validity review of a patent that was part of a wiped-out $1.9 billion verdict against Cisco Systems Inc.”; and
• another article about “the U.S. Supreme Court quickly pass[ing] on the opportunity to look at the Federal Circuit’s use of one-sentence Rule 36 rulings.”