FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed with the Court in a takings case and a pro se case; the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case and a veterans case; and three amicus briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With regard to granted cases, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed its merits brief in Arellano v. McDonough. With respect to petitions, four new petitions were filed with the Court, one in a patent case, one in a case addressing the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, and two in pro se cases; seven amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitions in two patent cases addressing the written description requirement; and the Court dismissed a petition in another 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 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 an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received three new petitions raising questions related to ­­means-plus-function limitations and transfers. The court also denied five petitions for rehearing raising issues including the standard for granting a motion to seal court records, choice of law, estoppel arising from inter partes review, and claim construction. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a response to a petition raising a question related to the motivation to combine prior art references in an obviousness analysis. The court also invited a response to a petition that raising questions related to the standard for granting a motion to seal court records. The court received an amicus brief in support of a petition raising a question related to the presumption of nexus in an obviousness analysis. Finally, the court received a reply in support of a petition raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received four new petitions raising questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review proceedings, motivation to combine prior art references, and the presumption of nexus in a non-obviousness analysis. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to claim construction and a response to a motion to expedite issuance of the mandate in a case raising questions related to choice of law, forum selection clauses, and injunctive relief. The court also invited a response to the petition already mentioned that raised a question related to motivation to combine prior art references. Finally, the court denied three petitions raising questions related to claim construction and the written description requirement. 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 discussing how the “Federal Circuit sidestep[ed] [the] determination of generics’ skinny label as protection against induced [patent] infringement”;
• an article detailing how the “Federal Circuit h[eld] that a price ‘quotation’ can trigger [patent law’s] on-sale bar”; and
• another article analyzing how “Disney convince[d] [the] Fed. Circ. to reject [the] ‘Teen Tinker Bell’ trademark.”

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Recently the Federal Circuit granted en banc review in one veterans case, and last week the en banc court heard oral argument in another veterans case. As for petitions for en banc review in patent cases, the court invited a response to a petition raising a question related to claim construction. The court also received three new responses to petitions raising questions related to the Appointments Clause, claim construction, and the written description requirement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the inducement doctrine’s interaction with the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The opinion addresses issues related to estoppel as a result of inter partes review. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in a patent and employment case, and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case. Notably, with respect to the order, Chief Judge Moore wrote a concurring opinion joined by Judges Newman, O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen, while Judge Prost wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Judges Dyk and Reyna. Finally, the court issued three nonprecedential orders denying and dismissing petitions for writs of mandamus and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.

This morning the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions in patent cases. The first opinion addresses issues related to the on-sale bar for a design patent. The second opinion addresses a district court’s finding after a bench trial that claims were invalid for failing to meet the non-obviousness requirement. Notably, Judge Newman wrote a dissenting opinion in this second case. The court also issued two nonprecedential opinions in an employment case and a veterans disability case. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.