Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article analyzing cases and an emerging trend regarding how “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners”;
- a blog post detailing how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference consider[ed] Judge Albright’s problematic patent court”;
- another blog post evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021”; and
- another article explaining how the Federal Circuit “rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of [a government contract] award prejudiced it.”
Gene Quinn filed an article with IPWatchdog assessing the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp. Quinn claims the outcomes of these cases establishes that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board is only the first hurdle in what is a long game for patent owners” given that the PTAB is “being told by the Federal Circuit that what they did in determining some claims were not invalid (i.e., were valid) was erroneous and without substantial evidence.”
Dennis Crouch published a blog post for PatentlyO highlighting how the “Supreme Court and Judicial Conference [are] considering Judge Albright’s problematic patent court” based on an excerpt from “Chief Justice John Roberts’ end-of-year Report on the Federal Judiciary for 2021.”
Daniel F. Klodowski and Eric A. Liu wrote a blog post for the Finnegan IP Blog evaluating the “Federal Circuit’s PTAB appeals statistics through November 30, 2021.” Klodowski and Liu noted that, “[w]hile the vast majority of these appeals came from IPRs, the number of PGR appeals has slowly increased over time, partially offsetting a decline in the number of CBM appeals.”
Jennifer Bennett authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how, in System Studies & Simulation, Inc. v. United States, “[a] company that twice missed out on a government contract for helicopter flight training services lost its bid for another chance after the Federal Circuit . . . rejected arguments the U.S. Army’s improper handling of the award prejudiced it.” Bennett noted how the court found that there was neither a “presumption of prejudice after irrationality determination” nor was there a “clear error in finding no demonstrated prejudice.”