FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting that “[w]hether machine learning is patent eligible depends upon whether you ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post discussing how “the majority of Schedule A cases ‘involve allegations of trademark or design patent infringement, though some allege violations of copyrights or of utility patents”;
• a blog post highlighting highlighting how, “[i]n the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what”; and
• a blog post covering how the USPTO’s “‘settled expectations’ policy” for denying petitions for inter partes review “now has a second challenger at the Supreme Court.”

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

• an article suggesting a recent Federal Circuit decision “stressed that the inventorship listed on a patent demands perfection”;
• a blog post noting “a final rule in the Federal Register” explains that the USPTO “is ‘revising its practice of requiring additional information for delays in taking certain actions in patent applications and patents’”;
• an article discussing how the “Department of Justice has told the Federal Circuit that multibillion-dollar patent infringement litigation should be directed at the government, instead of Moderna”; and
• an article arguing “[m]any news outlets have struggled to accurately characterise the nature of the proceedings surrounding [Judge] Newman, leading to widespread misunderstanding among readers and legal observers alike.”

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 in response to a petition raising a question related to correction of inventorship; a citation of supplemental authority was filed in a case related to the Hatch-Waxman Act; and the court denied one petition in another case raising questions related to correction of inventorship. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, five new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to correction of inventorship, damages, the domestic industry requirement, and infringement. Three new amicus briefs were also filed in a case raising questions related to design patent infringement. Finally, four petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

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

• a blog post suggesting the “Federal Circuit’s tightening of the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of nonobviousness has become one of the most consequential doctrinal developments in patent law over the past decade”;
• an article reporting that “Big Tech companies and the lawyers who represent them are expressing disappointment that the nation’s top patent court is declining to rein in changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
• a blog post highlighting how a recent Federal Circuit decision “underscores the critical importance of rigorously documenting inventorship, maintaining contact with all contributors, and proactively managing inventorship determinations before patent applications are filed”; and
• an article analyzing another recent Federal Circuit decision that found an “accused device to be plainly dissimilar” to a “claimed design . . . even though lay observers might initially see close visual similarity.”

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

• a blog post arguing the Federal Circuit’s application of the judicial exceptions to patentability for software patents “has resembled less a coherent legal standard and more a series of freely-improvised opinions”;
• an article discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “composition of matter claims covering engineered cells containing DNA from two different organisms chemically spliced together are not patent-ineligible natural phenomena”;
• a blog post addressing how the repeal of 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) “left an open question that the patent bar has been debating for more than a decade: can incorrect inventorship still be raised as a defense in patent litigation?”; and
• a blog post exploring a recent Federal Circuit decision in which the court “couldn’t determine whether the plaintiff suffered a physical taking of its radio license” because the parties had not adequately briefed whether a federal statute created “a private property right.”

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

• an article observing how the Federal Circuit is “increasingly using the ‘plainly dissimilar’ formulation to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement in design patent cases”;
• a blog post reporting how “the Bar Association for the District of Columbia (BADC) filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Newman’s petition for cert currently before the U.S. Supreme Court”; and
• an article indicating “[p]atent challengers are increasingly ⁠relying on” ex parte reexaminations instead of inter partes reviews.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion comes in comes in a patent case addressing inventorship. The nonprecedential comes in another patent case addressing anticipation and obviousness. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case, and both nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Court of Federal Claims–one in a vaccine case and one in a government contract case. Here are introductions to the opinions.