FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, five new petitions for en banc rehearing have been filed raising questions related to correction of inventorship, damages, the domestic industry requirement, and infringement. Three new amicus briefs were also filed in a case raising questions related to design patent infringement. Finally, four petitions were denied in cases raising questions related to eligibility and infringement. Here are the details.

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

• an article discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented”;
• a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface”; and
• an article explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.”

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

• a blog post suggesting a recent Supreme Court copyright-law decision is a “troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement” in the skinny label case decided by the Federal Circuit;
• a blog post highlighting a recent Federal Circuit “decision regarding recombinant DNA subject-matter eligibility”; and
• a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision focusing on “whether . . . the patentee is entitled to damages reflecting foreign sales.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, three new petitions for en banc rehearing were filed raising questions related to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert witness analyses related to disclosed structure for means-plus-function limitations, and patent eligibility; one new response was filed to a petition raising questions related to de minimis infringement; and the Federal Circuit denied a petition that raised a question related to eligibility. Here are the details.

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. In it, REGENXBIO appealed a decision of the District of Delaware, which granted a motion for summary judgment and held the asserted claims to be ineligible for patenting. In an opinion authored by Judge Stoll and joined by Judges Dyk and Hughes, the panel reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. This is our summary of the panel’s opinion.

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

• an article arguing President Trump’s new replacement tariffs “almost certainly violate the law”;
• an article discussing how the Federal Circuit rejected “Tesla Inc.’s constitutional challenge to a Trump administration rule that makes it harder to contest the validity of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office”;
• a blog post addressing a recent Federal Circuit decision holding that “genetically engineered cultured host cells containing recombinant nucleic acid molecules are not directed to a natural phenomenon, and therefore are patent-eligible subject matter”; and
• an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently “held unlawful the U.S. International Trade Commission’s practice of automatically treating as confidential the questionnaire responses it receives in injury investigations.”

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 two new opinions, four recent oral arguments, and five upcoming oral arguments. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in a patent case we have been following because it attracted three amicus briefs. The case, REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., raises questions relating to eligibility of a genetically engineered cultured host cell that contains nucleic acid sequences from at least two different organisms spliced together into a single molecule. This case asks whether a district court erred in holding patent claims ineligible because the inventors merely “combined natural products and put them in a host cell.” Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll heard the oral argument. This is our argument recap.

This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. The court will convene 12 panels to consider 67 cases. Of the 67 cases, the court will hear oral argument in 44. The Federal Circuit provides access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. This month, four cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these four cases.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in October attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. In this patent case, REGENXBIO Inc. and the Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of ineligibility. This is our argument preview.