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

  • an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent announcement that “January oral arguments will be conducted by phone”;
  • another article detailing the Federal Circuit’s recent “switch back to remote oral arguments amid the omicron spike”;
  • yet another article discussing “six bid protest decisions worthy of note”; and
  • a blog post analyzing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination of certain patent claims as “unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious.”

Blake Brittain filed an article for Reuters detailing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. said in a statement . . . that it would hold January oral arguments by telephone because of ‘changing public health conditions’ in the region.” Brittain noted that this recent announcement follows the “[c]ourt sa[ying] last week [that] it would require negative tests for in-person hearings.” reported that, “[a]s the omicron variant of COVID-19 spikes across the nation, federal appeals nation courts are weighing whether to switch to virtual oral arguments or alter their rules for in-person hearings.” It was further noted that the “Federal Circuit . . . [was one of] the first two federal appeals courts to switch back to remote oral arguments amid the omicron spike.”

Aron Beezley, Lisa Markman, and Patrick Quigley published an article for JD Supra explaining how “[i]n 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued six bid protest decisions worthy of note.” Beezely, Markman, and Quigley’s article “provides a brief overview of these six cases and discusses how they might shape the bid protest landscape going forward.”

Donald Zuhn authored a blog post for Patent Docs discussing how, in Quest Diagnostics Investments LLC v. Hirshfeld, “the Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 1, 2, and 4-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,409,862 unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious.”