Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article commenting on the recently published transcript from Judge Newman’s hearing to determine whether Newman was “justified in not complying with an investigative committee’s request for medical records”;
- an article discussing a failed mediation between Judge Newman and her “judicial colleagues on the Federal Circuit”; and
- an article highlighting a recent opinion from the Federal Circuit affirming a patent tribunal’s finding of invalidity for two cancer treatment patents.
Shweta Watwe wrote an article for Bloomberg Law commenting on the recently published transcript from Judge Newman’s hearing to determine whether Newman was “justified in not complying with an investigative committee’s request for medical records.” As explained by Watwe, the “three-judge panel unsealed the hearing’s transcript despite Newman’s attorney’s objection to inserting the descriptor ‘cardiac condition’ in several instances to replace a more specific redacted phrase about the judge’s health.”
Andrew Goudsward authored an article for Reuters discussing the failed mediation between Judge Newman and her “judicial colleagues on the Federal Circuit.” According to Goudsward, Judge Newman has “said she would consider engaging with investigators only if the investigation is transferred to another appeals court.”
James Arkin wrote at article for Bloomberg Law highlighting the recent Federal Circuit decision in Incept LLC v. Palette Life Sciences, Inc. As explained by Arkin, in this case the Federal Circuit “affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision invalidating claims from two patents related to methods for improved cancer treatment using radiation,” finding them “obvious in light of an earlier invention.” Arkin noted that Judge Newman “disagreed with several assertions from the majority” and “said she would [have] remand[ed] to the PTAB to determine whether the remainder of the challenged dependent claims should be separately invalidated.”