Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article explaining the new COVID-19 protocols adopted by the court;
- a blog post assessing how “[t]he issue of standing can be outcome-determinative”;
- another blog post noting how SMU Dedman School of Law’s “Tsai Center for Law, Science, and Innovation has posted to its YouTube channel some of the panels from its Fall 2021 Symposium on patent law”; and
- another article discussing “how important it is to review patent applications during research and development to ensure they cover what ends up being the key invention.”
Perry Cooper authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the “new protocols announced by the court in response to the latest [COVID-19] surge in case numbers.” Cooper noted that “[n]ow to enter the court building all counsel and attendees must show proof of having received a negative PCR Covid test administered within 72 hours of oral argument.”
Kevin E. Noonan published a post on Patent Docs explaining how, in the context of University of South Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc., “[t]he issue of standing can be outcome-determinative: without it, no matter how worthy a party’s position or arguments, a court will not consider them without standing.”
Bill Vobach wrote a post for 717 Madison Place highlighting how SMU Dedman School of Law’s “Tsai Center for Law, Science, and Innovation has posted to its YouTube channel some of the panels from its Fall 2021 Symposium on patent law.” Vobach indicated that he “was interested to hear Professor Sheppard’s comments about the low morale of some of the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] judges and the shenanigans that take place if a PTAB judge does not ‘play ball.'”
Ryan Davis filed an article with Law360 analyzing how “[t]wo recent Federal Circuit decisions finding drug patents invalid . . . highlight how important it is to review patent applications during research and development to ensure they cover what ends up being the key invention.” Davis emphasized that “the takeaway for attorneys and inventors is that the Federal Circuit is paying very close attention to ensuring that the patent discloses that the inventor knew at the time of the application what the working invention was.”