FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a merits brief and an amicus brief were filed in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case concerning the First Amendment. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court in two patent cases addressing eligibility and prosecution laches respectively and in a takings case. Additionally, waivers of right to respond were filed in the patent case addressing prosecution laches and in a pro se case, and a supplemental brief was filed with the Court in a patent case addressing eligibility. Finally, three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case addressing judicial review of determinations whether to institute inter partes review proceedings. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued its opinion yesterday in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, one in a trade case, one in an employment case, and three in pro se cases. Three briefs in opposition were filed, two in veterans cases and one in a patent case. Two waivers of the right to respond were filed in the same patent case. And, finally, four petitions were denied, three in patent cases and in one pro se case. Here are the details.

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 oral argument in the Supreme Court case Amgen v. Sanofi;
• an article about “Centripetal Networks LLC urg[ing] the Federal Circuit to stop a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal’s validity review of a patent that was part of a wiped-out $1.9 billion verdict against Cisco Systems Inc.”; and
• another article about “the U.S. Supreme Court quickly pass[ing] on the opportunity to look at the Federal Circuit’s use of one-sentence Rule 36 rulings.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, on Monday the Court heard oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court in three patent cases and a pro se case. The Court also denied three petitions. Here are the details. 

The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC. In this case, the Court is considering “[w]hether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument recap.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a case addressing patent law’s enablement requirement. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following question: “Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to ‘make and use’ the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art ‘to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments’ without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial ‘time and effort.’” This is our argument preview.

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

• an article about “[b]iotechnology giant Amgen . . . arguing that Sanofi is a walking contradiction when it comes to the patent challenger’s stance on enablement requirements”;
• another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding “Google LLC must litigate a patent infringement lawsuit brought by telecom startup Flypsi Inc. in Waco, Texas, rather than San Francisco”; and
• a third article about “how to handle AI inventions from a policy perspective.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, a reply brief was filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, a new petition was filed with the Court in a veterans case and another in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and a reply brief was filed in a trade case. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. The Court recently granted the motion of the Solicitor General leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, the pending patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a pro se case and another in a Merit Systems Protection Board case; the government filed its brief in opposition in a trade case; one amicus brief was filed in a trademark case and three amicus briefs were filed in a patent case (including, interestingly, an amicus brief on behalf of retired federal appellate judges); and the Court denied six petitions in various patent, veterans, and pro se cases. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, fourteen amicus briefs were filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case addressing the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed with the Court, three new amicus briefs were filed in patent case. Here are the details.