FedCircuitBlog

• Good News for Patentees: Bipartisan NSCAI Invokes National Security in Calling for Legislation to Clarify Patent Eligibility – A recent report released by a bipartisan congressionally-established commission lends powerful support to Section 101 reform initiatives.
• Dish Rejected in Bid to Revive Data Compression Patent Challenge – The Federal Circuit refused to jump-start a patent challenge after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the challenge was time-barred.
• Method for Determining Haplotype Phase Found Subject Matter Ineligible – Applying the Alice framework, the Federal Circuit emphasized that a mathematical or scientific algorithm, without more innovation or improvement, is patent ineligible.

Here’s the latest.

• U.S. Wrongly Linked 3 Steel Companies In Duty Probe – The U.S. Department of Commerce improperly tied steel companies together in an anti-dumping investigation, said the Federal Circuit.
• All Substantial Rights Deemed Test Informative – With the decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit endorses the “all substantial rights” test for the first time.
• Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed – Finally, the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs to a Section 315(a) and (b) case.

Here’s the latest.

This post summarizes recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The Supreme Court received six new petitions this week in (1) BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., (2) Phazzer Electronics, Inc. v. Taser International, Inc., (3) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank., (4) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Apple, Inc., et al., (5) Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and (6) Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
• In Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Comcast submitted its reply to the ITC’s brief in opposition.
• Finally, the State of Indiana submitted identical amicus briefs in favor of the petitioners in both Jake LaTurner, Kansas State Treasurer v. United States and Andrea Lea, Arkansas State Auditor v. United States.

Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one nonprecedential order in a patent case vacating the court’s judgment and dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Here is text from the order.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

• The petition in Superior Communications, Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies, Inc. was granted. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. _ (2020).
• One new Tucker Act petition was filed in Callan Campbell v. United States.
• A new response was filed in both (1) Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company and (2) Hospira, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company.
• New amicus briefs were filed in (1) American Institute for International Steel, Inc. v. United States and (2) Comcast Corp. v. International Trade Commission.

Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LLC. The Court held that time-bar decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board when determining whether to institute inter partes review proceedings are not appealable. Justice Ginsburg authored the majority decision. Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor dissented.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. It was an exceptionally busy week. In granted cases, the Supreme Court decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. and heard oral arguments in four of its other cases. As for petitions cases, two petitions were denied and four new responses, two new replies, and three new amicus briefs were filed. Here are the details.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, a case addressing whether a patent owner has the right under the patent statute to appeal a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a petition for inter partes review was not filed after a statutory deadline. In short, while Justice Gorsuch appeared to agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that patent owners have that right, several other Justices, and particularly Justice Kagan, seemed to harbor significant doubt that Congress had not eliminated the ability to appeal in this circumstance.

Does the patent statute permit patent owners to appeal decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board that petitions for inter partes review were not filed late? Or, under the statute, are these decisions simply unreviewable? The Supreme Court will tackle these questions on Monday, when it will hear argument in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In granted cases, various briefs were filed in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. and Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. In addition, one new pro se petition was filed, along with two new amicus briefs in other cases. Here are the details.