Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post discussing venue in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary”;
- an article analyzing arguments recently made for why a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive”; and
- another article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.”
J. Jonas Anderson and Paul Gugliuzza co-authored a guest post for PatentlyO discussing community ties in patent litigation in the context of “Chief Justice Roberts provid[ing] his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.” Anderson and Gugliuzza noted that, “[i]n the report, he addressed three issues that have ‘been flagged by Congress and the press’ over the last year.” More specifically, they explain how he addressed “’the arcane but important matter’ of judicial assignment and venue for patent cases.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 highlighting recent arguments that a “suit against [an] ex-USPTO director should stay alive.” Karpan explained how “[a] technology company has blasted former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee . . . for taking the ‘extreme’ step of arguing they are immune from facing claims that they rigged the inter partes review system to serve tech giants like Google.”
John M. Rogitz filed an article with IPWatchdog explaining how, in the patent case Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit “held that the term ‘lifter member’ invokes means plus function (MPF) claiming.” Rogitz detailed how “the Federal Circuit addressed the exclusion of expert testimony, the construction of three different claim terms, and whether a certain reference teaches yet another claim term.”