FedCircuitBlog

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights commentary regarding the oral argument at the Supreme Court in Maine, Moda, and Land of Lincoln, a summary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Peter v. Nantkwest, and a report on an attorney (who recently made news for his arguments in an appeal at the Federal Circuit) being ordered to leave a courtroom in the Second Circuit.

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.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that the Patent and Trademark Office does not get to recover the salaries of its attorneys and paralegal employees when a patent applicant files a civil action in the United States District of Virginia to challenge a rejection of its application.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report covers a story by the New York Times on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition by the University of Wisconsin, a press release by Representative Doug Collins criticizing a decision of the Federal Circuit on patent eligibility, and two comments on the recent oral argument at the Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the six pending merits cases and also denied or dismissed 21 petitions. In addition, in the past week four new petitions were filed, three in patent cases and one in a government contract case. As well one response in opposition to a petition and two reply briefs in favor of certiorari were filed.

Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, and—to put it lightly—the government had a tough go. Malcolm Stewart of the Office of the Solicitor General faced a barrage of questions finding fault with the government’s position that patent applicants must pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s attorneys’ fees when challenging rejections in federal district court. NantKwest’s Morgan Chu, by contrast, faced many questions seeking to clarify the historical record and NantKwest’s position, but few directly challenging NantKwest’s position on the merits.

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report covers a note on comments made by Federal Circuit Judge S. Jay Plager during recent oral arguments, a report on a recent Federal Circuit opinion related to the authority to issue certificates of correction of patents, and a preview of Monday’s oral arguments in Peter v. NantKwest.

When a patent applicant challenges the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s rejection of her patent application, and in particular takes that challenge into federal district court rather than straight to the Federal Circuit—in order, for example, to introduce new evidence and obtain de novo review—must the applicant pay the USPTO’s personnel expenses of the district court proceeding? Indeed, must the applicant pay those expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of whether the applicant wins or loses in court? Those are questions the Supreme Court will consider Monday, when it holds oral argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the first of six Federal Circuit cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear during the 2019 Term.