Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- two articles discussing a district judge’s urging for Judge Newman and her colleagues to use mediation to resolve their dispute related to her fitness to serve as a judge;
- a blog post featuring comments by former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel on the potential impact of the recently introduced Patent Eligibility Restoration Act; and
- a blog post discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of a petition for rehearing en banc in a design patent case addressing obviousness.
Andrew Goudsward authored an article for Reuters discussing how district judge Christopher Cooper urged Judge Newman and her colleagues to use mediation to resolve their dispute related to her fitness to serve as a judge. Goudsward notes how Judge Cooper said Judge Newman’s case “really cries out for some sort of mediation” and how, “[l]ike any family, disagreements can become personal.” Goudsward also highlights how Judge Cooper urged the parties to find “common ground.”
Kelcee Griffis authored an article for Bloomberg Law also discussing Judge Cooper’s remarks related to Judge Newman’s lawsuit seeking to end the investigation into her fitness to serve as a judge. Specifically, Griffis discusses how Judge Cooper recommended “a former federal judge who would be well suited to mediating the issues.” Griffis also highlights how Judge Cooper “gave the parties two days to discuss the mediation route” and that, if they are “unable to reach a consensus on the approach,” Judge Newman’s “claims will proceed to a federal court briefing on Newman’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
Steve Brachman wrote a blog post for IPWatchdog discussing former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel’s comments on the potential impact of the recently introduced Patent Eligibility Restoration Act. Brachman notes how Judge Michel said the act “would be . . . prevent federal courts from reestablishing judicial exceptions and from importing novelty, obviousness and definiteness or enablement issues into the subject matter eligibility analysis.” Brachman also discusses how Judge Michel remarked that he did not expect the new law to be enacted “any sooner than 2025.”
Sarah Burstein wrote a blog post for PatentlyO discussing the Federal Circuit’s recent grant of a petition for rehearing en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, a design patent case addressing obviousness. She says “there needs to be a meaningful difference between what is deemed ‘basically the same’ (i.e., similar enough to be a primary reference) and ‘the same’ (i.e., similar enough to anticipate/infringe).”