Strike Two for CPC at High Court in Rule 36 Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CPC Patent Technologies petitioned the Court in March of this year asking the Justices to consider the question: “Whether the Federal Circuit can affirm a PTAB decision without opinion in contravention of the clear statutory requirement of an ‘opinion’ when reviewing such decisions.”

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Rapunzel Trademark Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Rebecca Curtin, leaving in place a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that barred her from opposing the trademark registration for “RAPUNZEL” for dolls and toy figures. The Court declined to review the CAFC’s holding that a consumer lacks the statutory entitlement to oppose a trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1063 because such consumer interests fall outside the commercial zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act.

The Supreme Court Picks the Wrong Patent Fight in Hikma v. Amarin

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. is puzzling—and revealing. On its face, the case presents a narrow question: whether a generic drug manufacturer can be held liable for inducing patent infringement based on how it markets a product approved under a so-called “skinny label.” The dispute turns on whether Hikma’s conduct plausibly encouraged physicians to prescribe its generic drug for a patented use. But the Court’s decision to grant certiorari reflects something broader: a continued focus on lowering drug prices through faster generic entry, even at the risk of undermining the patent incentives that make pharmaceutical innovation possible.

Federal Circuit Reverses Trade Secret and Patent Invalidity Rulings in Penile Implant Dispute

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, reversing the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and patent invalidity claims. The district court had found that Dr. Robert Cornell and several other defendants misappropriated four trade secrets related to cosmetic penile implants, breached a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), and that two patents were invalid for failure to name an inventor. The CAFC reversed the denial of JMOL on those claims but affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL for the defendants with respect to counterfeiting liability.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 17: CAFC Reverses District Court Rulings in Penile Implant Patent Case; CJEU Clarifies Scope of ‘Pastiche’ Copyright Exception; Stanford AI Index Shows Tech Gap Between U.S. And China Nearly Gone

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit reverses a California district court’s denial of JMOL on trade secret and patent inventorship claims related to a cosmetic penile implant; the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously advances a bill to reauthorize the National Quantum Initiative; the Court of Justice for the European Union clarifies the scope of the pastiche exception for new works sampling copyrighted works to engage in artistic, critical or humorous dialogue; and more.

USPTO Pushes for More ASAP! Search Pilot Participants with Extended Deadline

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) announced today that it will be extending the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) until June 1, 2026, to gather additional information and continue evaluating the program’s effectiveness. The Pilot was first announced in October 2025 and is meant to “evaluate the impact of sharing the results of an automated search prior to examination of an application.” 

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Amgen in Reversal of Invalidation of Teva Headache Treatment Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, reversing the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity of Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s headache treatment patents. The district court found that the asserted claims were invalid for failing to satisfy both the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, but the CAFC found the district court’s grant of JMOL improper on both counts. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Cunningham and District Judge Andrews.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates