Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing comments Judge Newman made in a recent interview regarding the ongoing dispute regarding her fitness to serve as a judge;
- an article covering statements made by Andrei Iancu, the former head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley, who both recently joined Sullivan & Cromwell; and
- a blog post about how a recent Federal Circuit decision “zeroes in on the motivation-to-combine analysis” and allegedly provides more clarity on what makes a proper obviousness analysis as a whole.
Dani Kass authored an article for Law 360 discussing comments Judge Newman made in a recent interview regarding the ongoing dispute regarding her fitness to serve as a judge. Kass noted how Judge Newman stated, with regard to the investigation as a whole, “[t]here’s absolutely no doubt in [her] mind that the objective truth is completely on [her] side.” Kass also highlighted how Judge Newman claimed “her mind is as sharp as ever and that her colleagues know it, which makes their silence all the more painful.”
Riddhi Setty authored an article for Bloomberg Law highlighting statements made by Andrei Iancu, the former head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley, who both recently joined Sullivan & Cromwell. Setty noted how Iancu intends to keep “an eye on efforts by lawmakers and regulators to revamp the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” She also discussed how O’Malley is “interested in utilizing her experience with multidistrict litigation, securities fraud, and antitrust class actions, to expand the range of her litigation consulting at the firm.”
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for PatentlyO about how a recent Federal Circuit decision in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. “zeroes in on the motivation-to-combine analysis” and, he says, provides more clarity on what makes a proper obviousness analysis as a whole. He remarked how the holding in the case “indicates that the PTAB cannot improperly narrow its view of the relevant art based on specification details not reflected in the claims” and that, rather, “the relevant art must align with the scope of the claimed invention.”