Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post detailing the “top 10 patent cases: 1891 to 1951”;
- an article discussing how “[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Judge Leonard Stark’s nomination to the Federal Circuit”;
- another article explaining how “[t]wo of President Biden’s key nominations related to intellectual property law moved closer to confirmation on Thursday”; and
- yet another article assessing how the Federal Circuit recently explained that “a California district court erred in its claim construction.”
Dennis Crouch recently published a blog post on PatentlyO highlighting the “top 10 patent cases: 1891 to 1951.” Crouch noted that, “[p]rior to 1891, appeals in patent cases went directly to the Supreme Court, and the Court decided lots of patent cases.”
Perry Cooper reported for Bloomberg Law regarding how “[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Judge Leonard Stark’s nomination to the Federal Circuit, bringing him one step closer to a seat on the top U.S. patent court.” Cooper further explained that, “Stark, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, was approved on a bipartisan 16-6 vote.” She noted that it is “unclear when the full Senate will vote on the nomination.”
Blake Brittain similarly filed an article with Reuters discussing how “[t]wo of President Biden’s key nominations related to intellectual property law moved closer to confirmation on Thursday, when the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced them to the full Senate for a final vote.” Brittain explained that “[t[he committee voted 17-5 to advance Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and voted 16-6 for District Judge Leonard Stark to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent appeals from around the country.”
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog assessing how, in Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined “that a California district court erred in its claim construction relating to Evolusion Concepts, Inc.’s patent for a method of converting a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine to one with a fixed magazine.” The article went on to note that the Federal Circuit held that “[n]othing in the language of claims 1 and 8 limits the scope of the generic term ‘magazine catch bar’ to exclude one that was factory installed.”