#federal-circuit

#federal-circuit

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 23-2320 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (nonprecedential), illustrates how the Federal Circuit appears to be increasingly disregarding the jury's role in fact finding -- in this case disputes about whether a competitor's prior sales were anticipating based upon the on sale bar. Looking at it from an alternative perspective, the decision demonstrates how the Federal Circuit's regular disregard of conclusory expert testimony can vaporize what appear to be genuine factual disputes.

The Federal Circuit’s response so far has been as a collective institution-proceeding en banc from the outset and issuing unanimous per curiam orders-reflects institutional awareness of political vulnerabilities.

The Federal Circuit's decisions in Ingenico and Ironburg effectively eliminate statutory IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2), undermining its intended purpose to streamline litigation.

This reaffirmation by the Federal Circuit highlights the ongoing division between Judges Hughes and Reyna, which has been evident in multiple cases regarding trade law.

The Federal Circuit's decision underscores that merely applying generic machine learning techniques without improvements to the models themselves does not qualify for patent eligibility.

In the case of Heritage Alliance, the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB's decision, stating that the terms 'iVoterGuide' and 'iVoterGuide.com' were deemed highly descriptive and did not achieve distinctiveness.

The Federal Circuit panel indicated that the district court imposed an unjustifiably high standard on SAP in regard to specifying trial witnesses, though SAP's neutrality claim was upheld.