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

  • an article about a lawsuit filed by Judge Newman to halt the ongoing competency probe;
  • another article going into greater detail about Judge Newman’s case;
  • an article discussing the potential negative effects of the dispute with Judge Newman; and
  • an article detailing a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit overruling the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Blake Brittain posted an article for Reuters about a lawsuit filed by Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit to halt her competency probe. Brittain highlights how “Newman, who is 95, said in her complaint that the probe violated her constitutional rights, and she denied that there were legitimate concerns about her mental and physical capacity.” Brittain also noted how “Newman’s lawsuit claimed that the orders justifying the probe were ‘riddled with errors,’ describing as false an assertion that she was hospitalized after having a heart attack in 2021.”

Keclee Griffis authored an article for BloombergLaw going into more detail about Judge Newman’s arguments in the new lawsuit. Griffis highlights how Newman’s complaint stated that, “had Judge Newman suffered a heart attack, it would be extremely unusual for anyone, let alone a 94-year-old person, to serve throughout that period without skipping a beat (so to speak).” Griffis discusses how the complaint further contended that, “even were the allegation true, having coronary artery disease is simply irrelevant to one’s ability to be able to carry out judicial functions.”

Gene Quinn posted an article for IPWatchdog about the negative impact the case against Judge Newman may have on the Federal Circuit as a whole. Quinn takes the position that “it is a farce, fairy tale and outright misrepresentation to pretend Judge Newman is not working.”

Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 regarding the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Universal Electronics, Inc.  Kass discusses how the opinion states that a “hole in the PTAB’s ruling is ‘particularly problematic’ since it’s not fully clear what part of the prior art has to be modified to prove obviousness under the examiner’s ruling.”