Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit judges investigating Judge Newman’s fitness asked “a Washington, D.C. federal court late on Friday to dismiss Newman’s lawsuit challenging the unusual probe”;
- an article discussing the argument by the special committee investigating Judge Newman that “the internal actions of the three-judge special committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit aren’t subject to judicial review”;
- an analysis of pending legislation entitled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, which according to former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel “would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications”; and
- a blog post taking the position “that gen-AI tools will face high patent eligibility obstacles absent inclusion of strong technical implementation details placed at least within the specification, but more likely within the claims themselves.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters highlighting how the Federal Circuit judges investigating Judge Newman’s fitness asked “a Washington, D.C. federal court late on Friday to dismiss Newman’s lawsuit challenging the unusual probe.” Brittain notes how the “three-judge investigative panel and the Federal Circuit’s judicial council . . . said the lower court had no jurisdiction over the appeals court’s internal affairs, and that Newman was improperly challenging statutory mechanisms.”
Similarly, Adam M. Taylor wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the argument by the special committee investigating Judge Newman that “the internal actions of the three-judge special committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit aren’t subject to judicial review.” According to Taylor, the committee took the position that, “[w]hile no one questions Judge Newman’s many contributions to the law, her legal claims here are jurisdictionally deficient and meritless.”
Former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel wrote an article for IPWatchdog analyzing pending legislation entitled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, which he says “would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications.” Michel highlights “confusion and misunderstanding among some independent inventors” that “might slow or stall progress of the excellent eligibility reform bill.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post on PatentlyO taking the position “that gen-AI tools will face high patent eligibility obstacles absent inclusion of strong technical implementation details placed at least within the specification, but more likely within the claims themselves.” Crouch bases his position on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in USC IP Partnership v. Meta Platforms, in which, he says, the court agreed with a district court that certain claims “are directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, analyzing and using intent data.’”