FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues”;
• a blog post highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells”;
• an article discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before”; and
• an article commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.”

On May 12, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute Inc., a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. In a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Reyna and joined by Judges Hughes and Cunningham, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, holding the Board incorrectly applied the legal standard for conception. The panel also affirmed the Board’s determination of compliance with the written requirement and dismissed a cross-appeal as moot. This is our opinion summary. 

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 several new opinions issued, relating to takings, trade, patents, and trademarks. Also, there was one principal and response brief filed in a patent case and two new reply briefs filed in two other patent cases. There were no new cases pending before panels of the Federal Circuit that attracted at least one amicus brief. 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 piece discussing how the Federal Circuit recently “said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century”;
• an article discussing how a panel of the D.C. Circuit “seemed skeptical” of Judge Newman’s argument “that a statute allowing courts to self-police instances of misconduct and disability is unconstitutional across the board”;
• a blog post criticizing a recent Federal Circuit decision that he says “appears to have unintentionally upended fundamental principles of [inter partes review] estoppel”; and
• a report that the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center filed an amicus brief with the Federal Circuit, urging the court to “review a decision rejecting Xencor’s application for an antibody patent.”

Today the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part a case involving an interference between patent applications related to CRISPR-Cas9. The court also released two nonprecedential opinions in two pro se cases, four Rule 36 summary affirmances, and two nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, in turn, the court released five nonprecedential opinions, four in patent cases and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also released three nonprecedential orders granting summary affirmances under Rule 36 and another nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the summary affirmances and dismissals.

Here is an 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 three new opinions and dispositions in a Little Tucker Act case, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, a takings case, and a patent case. We also highlight three new cases that attracted amicus briefs: a patent case, a trademark case, and a veterans case. We also highlight new briefing in four patent cases as well as recent oral arguments in a patent case and government contract case. Here are the details.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to using the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system in eukaryotic (e.g., plant or animal) cells. Judges Reyna, Hughes, and Cunningham heard the argument. This is our argument recap.

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

• a news release discussing how Federal Circuit Judge Richard Linn has been “selected to receive the prestigious 2024 American Inns of Court Professionalism Award for the Federal Circuit”; and
• an article highlighting a pending case at the Federal Circuit in which the court will review a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an interference proceeding concerning competing patent applications related to the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene 11 panels to consider 60 cases. Of these cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 42. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, two cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these two cases.