FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article discussing the top patent cases to watch in the second half of 2022;
• another article highlighting how a petition for a writ of certiorari claimed that a Federal Circuit decision “would upend the legal rules governing the modern prescription-drug marketplace”; and
• a third article urging that the question of whether artificial intelligence can be an inventor under patent law “is one for Congress, not the courts, to address.”

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

• a blog post examining how “opinions in regular [Federal Circuit] appeals are more than twice as likely to be precedential than orders” on petitions for mandamus related to venue;
• an article discussing how “the Federal Circuit over the past decade has adopted more stringent standards for meeting the [Patent Act’s] dictates that patents provide a clear written description, and enable others to understand the invention”; and
• another article discussing how, after the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, “[p]atent eligibility in America is a train wreck.”

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

• an article interviewing several intellectual property attorneys about the Solicitor General’s brief in in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC;
• another article analyzing how the “Federal Circuit’s opinion and a potential Supreme Court affirmance may have far-reaching implications” in a pending case raising questions about patent law’s enablement requirement; and
• a third article discussing how the Federal Circuit recent found that a whiskey bearing a defunct investment firm’s name is likely to confuse customers.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in George v. McDonough, which concerns the scope of clear and unmistakable error in the context of veterans’ claims. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a case presenting a question related to Article III standing for patent licensees; a brief in opposition was submitted in a case raising questions related to patent eligibility; and reply briefs were filed in two patent cases: one raising questions related to inter partes review and one raising questions concerning enablement. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received and invited a response to a new petition raising questions related to enablement. The court also denied three petitions raising questions related definiteness, intervening rights, willfulness, unclean hands, claim construction, and the doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case. The court also issued three nonprecedential opinions: two in patent cases and one in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Finally, the court issued one precedential order granting a motion to substitute a successor-in-interest in a design patent case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and text from the order.

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 a disposition in a takings case, a patent case attracting an amicus brief on the issue of the non-obviousness requirement, new briefing in a patent case challenging post-grant review proceedings as violating due process, and four recent oral arguments in cases raising questions related to patent, takings, and veterans law. Here are the details.

• Fed. Circ. Again Says No State Sovereign Immunity In IPRs – In Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine, the Federal Circuit held that plaintiffs can request inter partes reviews of state universities’ patents and sovereign immunity does not apply.
• Federal Circuit Tries to Wrap Its Arms Around Functional Biotech Patent Claims – The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments last Wednesday and focused on the application of the enablement requirement to Amgen’s patent covering therapeutic antibodies.
• Del. Chief Urges Creativity When Litigating Patent Eligibility – Chief Judge Leonard Stark addressed the resolution of patent eligibility issues within litigation during a panel discussion on Friday.

Here’s the latest.

• Big Pharma to Face Off at Federal Circuit Oral Arguments Over Antibody Genus Patentability – A preview of an upcoming Federal Circuit case concerning enablement.
• No Patent? No Problem! The Federal Circuit Paves The Way For Non-Patent Owners To Sue Infringers – What happens in a patent lawsuit when not all of the parties that have an ownership interest in a patent are joined as plaintiffs?
• The Federal Circuit Tries To Demystify Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions – In Valeant Pharms. N. Am. v. Mylan Pharms., the Federal Circuit attempted to clarify where “acts of infringement” for venue purposes under §1400(b) occur in Hatch-Waxman actions.

Here’s the latest.

As we reported yesterday, four cases being argued next week at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. The second one we will preview is a patent case entitled Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. This case concerns patent law’s enablement requirement with respect to antibody claims. Amgen asserts “the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.” This is our argument preview