FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, the court received a petition raising a question related to patent eligibility. The court also issued an invitation for a response to a petition raising a question regarding Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the relevant patent has already expired. The court has also recently denied two petitions. The first denied petition raised a question concerning whether an abandoned patent application that becomes publicly available only after a challenged patent’s critical date is a printed publication that can form the basis for an inter partes review proceeding. The second denied petition raised questions concerning expert testimony to prove infringement of a means plus function element, claim construction, and the reverse doctrine of equivalents. Here are the details.

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 an opinion in a patent case reviewing determinations by the International Trade Commission of patent ineligibility and no lack of enablement; three oral argument recaps in a patent case concerning patent term extension reissued patents, a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and a government contract case; and a new patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the details.

Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit reviewed a determination by the International Trade Commission that claims of a patent asserted by US Synthetic Corp. are patent ineligible and that certain intervening companies, who defend the ITC’s judgment in this appeal, failed to prove lack of enablement of those claims. In an opinion authored by Judge Chen that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed the part of the judgment related to eligibility, affirmed the part of the judgment related to enablement, and remanded the case to the ITC. This is our opinion summary.

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

• an article predicting that Howard Lutnick will “soon be confirmed by the Senate to be the next Secretary of Commerce”;
• a piece discussing how several companies filed an amicus brief challenging jury instructions in a Texas case, telling the Federal Circuit the instructions “‘lower the standard for patent eligibility’”;
• a blog post analyzing how the Federal Circuit “has reversed a controversial . . . decision that had invalidated composition of matter claims as abstract ideas”; and
• a report covering how “MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. urged the Federal Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel’s January ruling that revived a patent for Novartis AG’s blockbuster heart-disease drug Entresto.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and one nonprecedential order. The lone precedential opinion comes in a patent case on appeal from the International Trade Commission. Of the nonprecedential opinions, one comes in a patent case on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the other comes in an appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The lone nonprecedential order dismisses an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the order.

Last week, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, a patent case that attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit is reviewing a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Judges Dyk, Chen, 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 arguments in 50 cases. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel.  Notably, half of the panels will convene in and around San Francisco. These panels will take place at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law; the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Stanford Law School; Santa Clara University School of Law; and the San Francisco and San Jose locations of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The remaining six panels will convene at the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. This month, three cases scheduled for oral argument attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these three cases.

As we have highlighted this week, three cases scheduled to be argued in October at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission. In this case, US Synthetic appeals a judgment of the International Trade Commission, which found patent claims invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. This is our argument preview.

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 recent opinions in cases that attracted amicus briefs: one a patent case and one a trade case; three new cases we have identified that attracted amicus briefs: a takings case, a trademark case, and a veterans case; and new briefing in several cases that previously attracted amicus briefs: a new response brief in a patent case, two new reply briefs in patent cases, and supplemental briefing in a pro se case. Here are the details.

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 a new patent case, a reply brief in another patent case, oral arguments in a takings case and a pro se case, and an opinion in a patent case. Here are the details.