FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article suggesting the Federal Circuit in a recent opinion “explored and clarified” the limits on how a court can correct errors in patents;
• a blog post indicating another recent Federal Circuit decision answers the question of “[w]hat value” a patent has when it “expires before it issues”;
• an article explaining how the Supreme Court’s “unanimous decision in Hikma v. Amarin fundamentally altered the legal landscape for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, imposing a stricter standard for what constitutes patent infringement liability and potentially clearing a path for lower-cost alternatives to reach patients sooner”; and
• an article arguing President Trump’s “new Section 301 tariffs . . . run afoul of the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to ‘speak clearly’ when authorizing the executive to make decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.’”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a petition. This morning the court released three nonprecedential opinions and three nonprecedential orders. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one comes in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and one comes in a patent case appealed from the Northern District of California. The three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three amicus briefs were filed in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal power. Three new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to appellate procedure, the written description requirement, and claim construction. Finally, six petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to burden of proving unpatentability in inter partes review proceedings, obviousness, damages, appellate procedure, the domestic industry requirement, and objective indicia of nonobviousness. 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 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.”

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released two new nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and two nonprecedential opinions. The precedential opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Massachusetts. One of the nonprecedential opinions comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the other comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Here are the introductions to the opinions as well as links to the dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in an en banc case appealed from the Western District of Texas. Notably, Judges Reyna and Stark concurred in part and dissented in part. Today, the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a trademark case. The court also released three nonprecedential opinions affirming judgments, the first in a veterans case, the second in a patent case, and the third in an appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The Federal Circuit also released one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the dismissal.

This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions, one nonprecedential opinion, and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the precedential opinions addresses an appeal from five final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in a patent infringement case. The nonprecedential opinion affirms an arbitrator’s decision in a dispute over removal from a role with the United States Marshals Service. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders. In the first order, the court granted a petition to transfer an appeal from the Southern District of California to the Ninth Circuit. The other three nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here is text from the order transferring the appeal and links to the dismissals.

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

• a blog post about the Federal Circuit “den[ying] a petition for writ of mandamus asking the Delaware district court to vacate an order to produce certain documents” related to third party funding in patent case; and
• an article about “Pfizer and BioNTech[‘s] . . . countersuit, demanding a jury trial and refuting Moderna’s claims of infringement” of patents related to COVID-19 vaccines.

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

• an article about the “plunge by nearly one-fifth” of patent related filings in Texas federal courts;
• another article about whether the Federal Circuit considers research tools to be covered by safe harbor provisions in the Hatch Waxman Act; and
• a blog post about personal jurisdiction in patent infringement cases.