Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting aspects of the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge;
- an article expressing dissatisfaction with a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning the patentability of claimed ranges where the prior art discloses overlapping ranges; and
- a blog post discussing a recent Federal Circuit decision concerning what constitutes a dispute from which a government contractor may seek immediate relief.
Rachel Weiner authored an article for the Washington Post highlighting aspects of the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman’s fitness to serve as a judge. Weiner notes that Judge Moore earlier this year stated “[t]here can be no doubt that Judge Newman is the heroine of the patent system.” Weiner also points out how “Newman’s attorneys argue . . . the Federal Circuit committee has defied the law’s process by taking her off cases and is too conflicted to handle this investigation itself.” For our most recent update on the investigation, see our most recent blog post.
Ben Katzenellenbogen and Paul Stewart authored an article for Law360 discussing the recent Federal Circuit decision UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. In this case, the court considered “the patentability of claimed ranges where the prior art discloses overlapping ranges.” The authors note that the court held “that prior art disclosure of a range is not a disclosure of the endpoints of the range.” They remark that, “[u]nfortunately, the Federal Circuit . . . failed to provide any explanation or justification for its treatment of the endpoints in prior art ranges — other than a citation to earlier cases that recited the same conclusion without any meaningful justification.” They wish the Federal Circuit would “bring greater clarity and certainty to this area of law, and reduce the likelihood that district judges will erroneously analyze cases involving ranges.”
The Dentons law firm posted to the firm’s blog about the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force. The post notes how the court in this case “dismissed a contractor’s appeal of a contracting officer’s unilateral price definitization on two undefinitized contract actions (‘UCAs’).” The firm notes how the case “highlights that contractors may not rely upon stipulated language in their contracts concerning what constitutes a dispute from which a contractor may seek immediate relief.” The post further remarks that, “[f]rom a practical perspective, Lockheed provides little guidance on the broader issue of when a dispute ripens into a government ‘claim’ that immediately may be appealed to the boards or Court.”