FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, two new responses were filed. One responds to a petition raising questions related to infringement and claim construction in design patent cases. The other responds to a petition raising a question related to admissibility of expert testimony. Two new amicus briefs were also filed supporting a petition raising questions related to the domestic industry requirement at the International Trade Commission. Finally, the court denied two petitions in cases raising questions related to obviousness, apportionment, and eligibility. Here are the details.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:

• an article discussing “[h]ow and why the conservative justices differed” in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision;
• an article highlighting how the “Supreme Court deliberated for months before moving to end the president’s unprecedented use of one tariff power,” but President Trump “put a different tariff power to unprecedented use almost immediately”;
• an article analyzing a recent Federal Circuit decision addressing the question of “whether expert testimony is admissible even if it does not strictly adhere to the court’s claim construction”; and
• a blog post examining the claim that the Patent and Trademark Office is “singling out and stalling” selected patent applications “for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court both abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony and erred in granting judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Judge Prost filed a dissenting opinion. Here are the introductions to the opinions.