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 the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Solicitor General “to provide its views on [a] petition asking the High Court to clarify the proper application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings”;
- an article about the Federal Circuit rejecting a “claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has implicitly overruled key design patent validity tests”; and
- another article about the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision that “overturned an earlier decision that would have allowed veterans to receive up to an additional year of education.”
Eileen McDermott authored a blog post about the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Solicitor General “to provide its views on [a] petition asking the High Court to clarify the proper application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.” See our coverage of this case here.
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 about the Federal Circuit rejecting a “claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has implicitly overruled key design patent validity tests.” Davis explained how in the case, LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Federal Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex “didn’t alter the obviousness test for design patents because ‘KSR did not involve or discuss design patents.’”
Patricia Kime wrote an article for Military.com about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Rudisill v. McDonough, which “overturned an earlier decision that would have allowed veterans to receive up to an additional year of education under the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI bills.” Kime explained how “VA’s attorneys have asserted that the law creating the Post-9/11 GI Bill limits entitlement to one program or the other, based on what the veteran selects.” Kime reported that the plaintiffs plan to challenge the Federal Court’s decision at the Supreme Court.