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 petitions, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were submitted in two patent cases raising questions related to patent law’s written description requirement. The government also waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a tax case. 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, since our last update there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed with the Court by a pro se petitioner, and a brief in opposition was submitted in a patent case related to the written description requirement. Here are the details.
Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. While there were no recent petitions, responses to petitions, or denials of petitions, the court did receive several amicus briefs. One amicus brief came in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., a case concerning the panel’s decision to deny competitor standing in an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Three came in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, where the petition raised questions related to “the panel’s new enablement test for genus claims with functional limitations” and whether that test is consistent with Supreme Court precedent on point. Here are the details.
- Inventor Group Wants To Halt All New PTAB Reviews – U.S. Inventor has filed an injunction request seeking to bar the PTAB from instituting any new patent reviews. However, unlike several tech companies who want to diminish the authority of the USPTO director to deny institution, U.S. Inventor hopes to enhance it.
- Biogen’s Patent Loss Spotlights Need to Stress Invention Novelty – The Federal Circuit’s recent decision emphasizes the need for patent applicants, particularly when seeking to patent biological drug products, to distinguish their inventions from those previously introduced to the public.
- Federal Circuit: Patent Directed to Physician to Patient Communication System Abstract, Invalid – The Federal Circuit issued an opinion earlier this month, which addressed both Section 101 patent eligibility and recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
Here’s the latest.
- Amgen Defeats Appeal Over Arthritis Drug Patents – Amgen successfully defends its multi-billion-dollar arthritis drug patents in the Federal Circuit on Wednesday.
- Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ax Of Aircraft Space-Saving IP – The Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, invalidated two aircraft patents in B/E Aerospace Inc. v. C&D Zodiac Inc.
- No rehearing for Biogen in Tecfidera patent appeal – Biogen was denied an en banc rehearing of Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC, finalizing Banner’s win in the Federal Circuit.
Here’s the latest.
Our final argument recap this month comes in Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc. As we noted in our argument preview, in this case the court confronts invalidity and infringement arguments related to IFN-β-related polypeptides, which can be used to treat multiple sclerosis. Last Friday, the parties (Plaintiff-Appellee Biogen MA, Inc. and Defendants-Appellants EMD Serono, Inc. and Pfizer Inc.) presented their arguments to a panel of the court that included Judges Newman, Linn, and Hughes.
Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights the Federal Circuit’s ruling in American Institute for International Steel v. United States upholding the Trump administration’s steel tariffs, an argument made by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that Arthrex does not extend to trademark judges, and a ruling by the Federal Circuit denying an injunction against a producer of a bioequivalent multiple sclerosis drug.
This week, the Federal Circuit will hold 16 panel hearings and hear oral arguments in about 58 cases. Amicus briefs were filed in four of these cases. The first of these is a patent case dealing with patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The second case addresses the issue of obviousness-type double patenting. The third is a takings case involving a notice of interim trail use. The fourth case focuses on invalidity and infringement standards for the administration of a multiple sclerosis treatment. Continue reading for more information about each of the featured cases.