Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a blog post about a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a district judge’s decision not to recuse himself despite a family member’s ownership of stock in a party;
- an article about Intel’s appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding “a jury’s $2.1 billion patent verdict against it”; and
- another article about the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision that “AI systems are not eligible to be inventors under US patent statutes.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about the petition filed by Centripetal Networks asking the “Supreme Court . . . whether [28 U.S.C. § 455] demands judicial recusal” in its case. Crouch reported how the Federal Circuit had previously ruled the district judge “should have recused himself from the entire case” after discovering his wife “held $5k in Cisco stock” even though the judge ultimately ruled against Cisco. Crouch criticized the Federal Circuit’s analysis of the risk of injustice in these circumstances.
Blake Brittain published an article for Reuters discussing Intel’s appeal to the Federal Circuit after “[a] Waco, Texas jury awarded VLSI $2.1 billion last year after finding Intel’s processing technology infringed two of [VLSI’s] patents.” Brittain highlighted how Intel argues the jury’s consideration of Intel’s settlement agreements relating to other patent disputes “prejudiced the jury against it and led to an excessive award.”
Robert McFarlane and Rosanna W. Gan co-authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the impact of the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “AI systems are not eligible to be inventors under US patent statutes.” McFarlane and Gan noted that the court’s decision “does not address patent protection for inventions made with the assistance of AI,” which limits the impact of the case.