News
on

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

  • an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Leonard Stark to the Federal Circuit, the nation’s top patent court”;
  • another article similarly discussing how “Judge Leonard Philip Stark was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday to be the next judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, replacing Judge Kathleen O’Malley”;
  • an article discussing how “Teva struck out . . . in its effort to convince a U.S. appeals court to rehear its arguments for undoing a $235 million verdict for GlaxoSmithKline”; and
  • yet another article explaining how recently the “Federal Circuit [effectively] clamp[ed] down on post IPR invalidity arguments.”

Perry Cooper filed an article with Bloomberg Law discussing how “[t]he U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Leonard Stark to the Federal Circuit, the nation’s top patent court.” Cooper noted that “Stark has handled 2,400 patent cases—63 of which have gone to trial—in his decade on the bench.”

Elieen McDermott wrote an article for IPWatchdog similarly discussing how “Judge Leonard Philip Stark was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday to be the next judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, replacing Judge Kathleen O’Malley.” McDermott suggested that “Stark will have to live up to the legacy of Judge O’Malley, who has gained a reputation for writing decidedly pro-patent opinions and likely will be missed by the IP community.”

Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters discussing how “Teva struck out . . . in its effort to convince a U.S. appeals court to rehear its arguments for undoing a $235 million verdict for GlaxoSmithKline in a patent fight over the heart drug Coreg.” Brittain highlighted that “Teva said it will appeal to U.S. Supreme Court.””

Ryan Davis authored an article for Law360 explaining how, in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd., the “Federal Circuit [effectively] clamp[ed] down on post-IPR invalidity arguments.” Davis highlighted how some attorneys have predicted that the “recent Federal Circuit ruling will restrict companies that have challenged patents in inter partes reviews from making invalidity arguments in later infringement litigation.” These attorneys suggest that the Federal Circuit’s decision will “turn[] IPRs into the primary battleground for validity disputes.”