FedCircuitBlog

This morning the Federal Circuit released three precedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the District of Delaware; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and the third comes in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second comes in another patent case appealed from the District of Delaware. Notably, in the second patent case, Judge Newman dissented. Finally, the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential orders dismissing appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. In a pending en banc veterans case, the court received two amicus briefs in support of the appellee, a veteran. The court also received two new petitions raising questions related to obviousness-based inherency of claims, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the grounds for inter partes review proceedings. Finally, the court denied two petitions for rehearing en banc raising questions related to means-plus-function limitations. 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 addressing some of “the biggest patent decisions so far this year”;
• another article discussing how the Federal Circuit found that an “[a]ttorney improperly represented clients while [he was a] Navy employee”; and
• a blog post noting how “[i]n a new opinion the [Federal Circuit] asked and answered an interesting question: What if most on-point prior art was accidentally created due to a typographical error?” 

This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; the second comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia; and the third comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and link to the Rule 36 judgment.

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 two opinions, one in patent case and one in a takings case; one new trade case; three oral argument recaps, two in to patent cases and one in a takings case; and two upcoming oral arguments. 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 how “[a]n unusual Federal Circuit decision has given generic drugmakers a new way to successfully challenge pharmaceutical patents with specific types of claims”;
• another article explaining how “the broader context of [Thaler v. Vidal] can provide strategic guidance for future AI litigation matters”; and
• a third article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently reversed a “$2.75 [billion] damages award because [the] judge’s wife owned stock.”

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Thaler v. Vidal, a case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. Thaler is the developer, user, and owner of DABUS, an artificial intelligence system that created the two inventions at issue in the case. On appeal, Thaler seeks review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which decided that an artificial intelligence machine cannot be an “inventor” under the Patent Act. This is our argument recap.

This morning the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; the second comes in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the third comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board; and the fourth comes in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan. Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case and three Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions, text from the order, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

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

• an article discussing how a “Federal Circuit panel homed in on the question of how to define ‘inventor’ and ‘individual’ in a test case for artificial intelligence inventorship”;
• another article highlighting how a recent supplemental brief argued that a pending Supreme Court case “will not clarify” questions about Section 101 patent eligibility; and
• a third article addressing how the Federal Circuit recently held that it is not a defense to willful patent infringement when a “district court . . . judicially correct[s] claims when there are ‘obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents’ without changing the scope of the claim.”

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 questions related to the scope of usable prior art in inter partes review. The court also denied a recent motion for limited remand in a case raising questions related to the Appointments Clause. Finally, the court denied a petition raising a question related to transfers of cases. Notably, all three of these cases involved Apple Inc. Here are the details.