FedCircuitBlog

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

• an opinion piece suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law”;
• a blog post discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court”; and
• a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.”

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

• a blog post explaining that “the detailed description of . . . non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made”;
• an article discussing how a recent Federal Circuit “ruling underscores how even small structural discrepancies in provisional patent applications can have significant consequences for priority claims and patent validity in pharmaceutical litigation”;
• a blog post highlighting how “Federal procedure has long used money bonds to price the risk that preliminary relief turns out wrong”; and
• an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court’s ruling “bolstered the Trump administration’s quest to fire immigration judges and other civil servants who have legal shields protecting them from at-will removal.”

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

• a blog post reviewing a recent Federal Circuit opinion and arguing a “defendant who is temporarily excluded from the market on the basis of a patent that turns out, ex post, to have been either invalid or not infringed (or otherwise unenforceable)” should be “compensated for the interim losses it suffers”;
• an article suggesting that “[s]atisfying the written description and enablement requirements has emerged as a significant challenge in patenting [antibody-drug conjugates] inventions in the U.S.”;
• an article by Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley “reflecting not only on what the Founders rejected, but on what they tried to build”; and
• an article highlighting that “President Donald Trump . . . threatened a 100% tax on imports from any country that imposes a tax on digital services from United States companies.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning the court released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, Judge Dyk concurred in part and dissented in part. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the other comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as a link to the dismissal.