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 “an appellate court ruling that many believe will be very damaging to the United States’ life sciences innovation sector”;
- an article about how “US Patent and Trademark Office rules for reducing the term of a patent survived a challenge at the Federal Circuit”; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit recently “affirmed the constitutionality of the [manner of appointment of the] Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges.”
Steven Brachmann wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog about “the U.S. Supreme Court . . . den[ying] the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Juno Therapeudics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.” Brachmann claimed “many believe [the denial] will be very damaging to the United States’ life sciences innovation sector” because the written description standard is “nearly impossible for life sciences inventors to properly meet.” Brachmann argued the denial “drive[s] Juno’s research away from cancer research, [and] it also greatly increases Section 112 validity risks for the entire life sciences sector.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law about how in Californiaa v. Vidal the “US Patent and Trademark Office rules for reducing the term of a patent survived a challenge at the Federal Circuit.” Shapiro reported that Eureca Californiaa, who invented “an incubator for ectopic pregnancies” had “sued the patent office after it cut the length of his patent by 51 days due to delay.” Shapiro summarized that the reduction of the term came after Californiaa “tweaked [the patent examiner’s] . . . edits [to the patent application] while also adding ‘several substantive changes.’”
Daniel Wilson wrote an article for Law360 about how in McIntosh v. Department of Defense the Federal Circuit “affirmed the constitutionality of the [manner of appointment of the] Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges.” Wilson explained that the challenge originated from “a former Pentagon contracting” employee who “argued [her dismissal] was retaliation for protected whistleblowing.” Wilson reported how the Federal Circuit held “’[t]he board’s administrative judges are not principal officers under the appointments clause because the board retains the unfettered authority to review their decisions.’”