FedCircuitBlog

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

• a blog post covering how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is challenging the “rationale behind the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex for certain technologies, specifically by advocating that claims to dosage regimens for pharmaceuticals should be almost per se obvious, particularly for such claims for which the pharmaceutical was itself patent protected”;
• another blog post highlighting how a joint letter from the Intellectual Property Owners Association and American Intellectual Property Law Association to Congress “asks that the USPTO be ‘exempted from executive actions that could further hinder its ability to meet its mission’”;
• a report discussing how the D.C. Circuit recently denied Judge Newman’s “request to unseal documents about her suspension for refusing to participate in an investigation into her fitness, saying such documents are confidential unless both the judge under investigation and the chief judge agree to release them”; and
• an editorial proposing “ways for the new Acting Director to fix the USPTO fast.”

This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court affirmed the PTAB’s decision that certain claims are unpatentable as obvious. Here is the introduction to the opinion.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the respondent’s merits brief was filed in Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. While no new petitions were filed, a waiver of the right to respond was filed in a pro se case. In addition, the Court denied the petitions in six patent cases, one takings case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court in June issued its opinion in Vidal v. Elster, a trademark case that attracted eight amicus briefs. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a particular living individual without that person’s consent violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court decided that history and tradition establish that the provision in question does not violate the First Amendment. Notably, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both concurred in part and Justice Sotomayor concurred only in the judgment. This is our opinion summary.

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. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, new waivers of the right to respond were filed by the government in one takings case and three pro se cases, and one new reply in support of a petition was filed in a patent case raising a question regarding the relationship between patent term adjustment and obvious-type double patenting. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, five nonprecedential orders, and one Rule 36 judgment. The precedential opinion comes in a government contract dispute and vacates a judgment and an injunction, affirms a sanctions order, and remands for further proceedings. Three of the nonprecedential orders deny petitions seeking orders to transfer or not transfer cases, while one remands an appeal with instructions that a district court consider a motion to vacate and the last order was a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders as well as links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgment.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include two new petitions raising questions concerning public disclosures under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and issue preclusion. The court also denied two petitions. One raised a question related to the relationship of claim construction and unpatentability arguments in inter partes review proceedings. The other raised questions related to means-plus-function claims and patent eligibility. 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, there is no new activity to report. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a pro se case, and two new replies were filed in patent cases raising questions related to notice-and-comment rulemaking and patent eligibility. Here are the details.

This morning the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion and one nonprecedential opinion. The precedential opinion affirms a summary judgment of invalidity in a patent infringement suit. The nonprecedential opinion affirms the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s dismissal of an opposition. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to the two cases pending at the Supreme Court that were previously decided by the Federal Circuit, merits briefs and amicus briefs were filed. With respect to petitions, five new petitions were filed, three briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, two new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one new amicus brief was filed. Here are the details.