FedCircuitBlog

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

• an article about how the “Federal Circuit refused . . . to rehear a challenge to a Delaware judge’s probe into the financing of patent litigation”;
• another article about “Sanofi and Regeneron on Friday urg[ing] the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Amgen’s arguments that it deserves broad patent coverage on cholesterol drugs”; and
• a blog post examining the reasons why the “Federal Circuit has ordered [Google’s] case moved out of the Western District of Texas (Waco) to the Northern District of California.”

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

• an article about “[a] Bristol Myers Squibb Co subsidiary on Monday los[ing] a renewed bid for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a 2021 decision that invalidated its cancer-drug patent and overturned a $1.2 billion infringement award it won”; and
• another article arguing that broad functional patent claims suppress medical innovation.

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 brief were filed in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case concerning the enablement patentability requirement. With respect to petitions, three new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a veterans case, one in a patent case, and one in a 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:

• an article about the U.S. International Trade Commission finding “Apple Watches with an electrocardiogram (ECG) function infringe patents belonging to medical device maker AliveCor Inc”;
• another article about Amgen Inc.’s arguments to the Supreme Court that “patents needn’t spell out every possible iteration of an invention in order to be eligible for protection”;
• a third article about “VLSI Technology LLC and Intel Corp . . . agree[ing] to end a patent dispute in Delaware”; and
• a fourth article about “[t]he Federal Circuit . . . order[ing] a California company to defend patent litigation it filed in Texas, as its competitor in optical filters is asking to have the case transferred.”

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, Amgen filed its opening merits brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, which concerns patent law’s enablement requirement. With respect to petitions, although no new petitions were filed with the Court, a brief in opposition and a reply brief were filed in patent case concerning inter partes review estoppel, and another reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. Last Friday, the Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case regarding the enablement requirement. In addition, one new petition was filed with the Court in a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in two other pro se cases; and the Court denied two petitions: one in a veterans case and one in a patent case. Notably, Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion dissenting from the decision to deny review in the veterans case. Here are the details.

Today the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, a patent case raising questions related to the enablement requirement. Although the petitioner requested review of two distinct questions, the Court granted review only for the second question presented. That question asks “[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.’” Notably, the Supreme Court granted review of this question despite the contrary view of the Solicitor General. 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 heard arguments this week in Arellano v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a patent case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond to a petition filed in a pro se case; the Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in two patent cases related to so-called skinny labelling and eligibility, respectively; a supplemental brief was filed in a patent case raising questions related to patent law’s enablement requirement; a reply brief was submitted in a veterans case addressing the standard of proof governing rejection of disability claims; and, finally, the Court denied more than 20 petitions. 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:

• an article about the Biden Administration advising the Supreme Court not to review a pharmaceutical patent decision raising questions related to the enablement requirement;
• a second article about the United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Kathi Vidal’s response “to a number of questions surrounding abuse of the inter partes review . . . system”; and
• a third article about “[a] recent district court order punt[ing] concerns about an administrative patent tribunal’s alleged bias to the Federal Circuit.”