* Disclaimer:The following case summaries should not be relied upon as or for legal advice. Click here for more details.
In re: Jeffrey A. Killian
(Docket #: 2021-2113)(Fed. Cir. 2022)(PDF, 20 pages)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not act arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) merely by applying binding judicial precedent regarding patent eligibility under §101.
In re: John Bradley McDonald
(Docket #: 2021-1697)(Fed. Cir. 2022)(PDF, 14 pages)
The recapture rule of 35 U.S.C. §251 bars reissue claims that attempt to recapture subject matter that was surrendered to overcome a §101 rejection during prosecution of the original patent.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.
(Docket #: 2020-1758)(Fed. Cir. 2021)(PDF, 19 pages)
A chemical patent that discloses just two particular compounds (of a large class of compounds) that bind to particular targets does not provide sufficient written description support for a claim that covers the entire genus of compounds from the class that binds to the particular targets, particularly when the patent description provides no other means of identifying which compounds of the compound class would bind to which targets, such as common structural characteristics or shared traits.
In Re: Vox Populi Registry Ltd.
(Docket #: 2021-1496)(Fed. Cir. 2022)(PDF, 11 pages)
The gTLD (generic top-level domain) ".SUCKS" cannot be registered as a standard character mark because it is only a non-source identifying part of a domain name and thus does not function as a mark.  The stylized version of ".SUCKS" also cannot be registered because it is merely a different font style and thus does not create an inherently separate commercial impression from the word itself, but such a stylized mark could potentially become registered if the applicant is able to prove acquired distinctiveness.
In re: Surgisil, L.L.P., et al.
(Docket #: 2020-1940)(Fed. Cir. 2021)(PDF, 4 pages)
A design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim - it does not broadly cover a design in the abstract.
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al.
(U.S. 20-440)(S. Ct. 2021)(PDF, 38 pages)
Assignor estoppel does not apply if the assignee materially broadens the claims of a patent application after the assignor assigned the patent application.