Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee”;
- a blog post about a Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit suggesting the Federal Circuit should go en banc more often to clarify patent eligibility law; and
- another blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.”
Adam Lidgett published an article for Law360 about how “FedEx . . . entered into an agreement to end a suit accusing it of infringing three search queries and database processing patents, less than a week after the Federal Circuit threw out a Texas federal judge’s refusal to transfer the suit to Tennessee.”
Eileen McDermott authored a blog post for IPWatchdog about “Retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Paul Michel sa[ying] a lot could be fixed by the CAFC itself with respect to patent eligibility law if it would just go en banc more often.” McDermott explained that these comments were made at a panel “discussing the effect of U.S. patent eligibility law on the life sciences industry,” which included discussion of “the potential impact of current efforts to reform patent eligibility law,” including the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act.
Logan Moore wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about the Federal Circuit’s resolution of a veterans case that clarifies “the general rule of deference to an agency’s interpretation and a pro-veteran canon.” Moore presented “insight on how adjudicators should analyze disability claims.” Moore explained that the case arose when “[t]he National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates (‘NOVA’) petitioned the Federal Circuit to review VA’s interpretation” of guidance regarding payments for knee replacement procedures.