FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit yesterday reheard a case “asking it to restrict the kinds of evidence expert witnesses can describe to juries while litigants argue over patent-infringement damages”;
• a blog post arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “highlights a significant divergence between the evidentiary standards for proving prior art status in district court litigation versus [American Invents Act] trials”;
• a piece claiming “a considerable difference of opinion between the [Federal Circuit] and [International Trade Commission] regarding interpretation and performance of [licensing] declarations” submitted to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute;
• a report explaining how John Squires, “Goldman Sachs’ former longtime chief intellectual property counsel,” has been nominated “to serve as the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director.”

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, three nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order, two summary affirmances, and one errata. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in patent cases and the other comes in a government contract case. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances, order, and errata.

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

• an article reporting how last week “the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several appeals involving intellectual property claims”;
• a blog post arguing that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “significantly expands what activities can establish a ‘domestic industry’ under the International Trade Commission’s patent power found in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)”;
• a piece claiming the Federal Circuit recently “indicated . . . that it doesn’t plan to overturn precedent holding that inventors forfeit their patent rights when they cause unreasonable delays in the application process”; and
• a report explaining how Cellspin Soft, Inc. recently petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming the Federal Circuit “wrongly upheld a district court’s decision not to recuse herself before clearing companies including Google LLC unit Fitbit LLC in a patent-infringement suit.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trade case. Notably, Judge Dyk dissented from the majority’s holding affirming the Court of International Trade. This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, and three nonprecedential orders. Both precedential opinions come in patent cases. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case, while the other comes in a veterans case. All three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, each dismissing an appeal. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, three nonprecedential opinions, two summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinions comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, two come in a patent cases, while one comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is this month’s update on activity in cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit where the cases involve at least one amicus brief. We keep track of these cases in the “Other Cases” section of our blog. Today, with respect to these cases we highlight an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. 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:

• a piece discussing the difference in approaches regarding what constitutes “patentable subject matter” between the United States and the United Kingdom;
• a blog post reviewing Judge Newman’s “recently filed reply brief and the Federal Circuit’s recent hiring of adversarial experts against Judge Newman”;
• a blog post overviewing the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 patent docket; and
• an article claiming that a recent decision by the Federal Circuit “makes clear that the [International Trade Commission]’s powerful import bans aren’t just available to major businesses.”

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that claims of a patent asserted by US Synthetic Corp. are patent ineligible and that certain intervening companies, who defend the ITC’s judgment in this appeal, failed to prove lack of enablement of those claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the part of the judgment related to eligibility, affirmed the part of the judgment related to enablement, and remanded the case to the ITC. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article predicting that Howard Lutnick will “soon be confirmed by the Senate to be the next Secretary of Commerce”;
• a piece discussing how several companies filed an amicus brief challenging jury instructions in a Texas case, telling the Federal Circuit the instructions “‘lower the standard for patent eligibility’”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit “has reversed a controversial . . . decision that had invalidated composition of matter claims as abstract ideas”; and
• a report covering how “MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel’s January ruling that revived a patent for Novartis AG’s blockbuster heart-disease drug Entresto.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.