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 a “former Federal Circuit Judge predicts shake-up on” the Federal Circuit;
- an article discussing “the pending ‘Vidal v. Elster‘ Supreme Court case and whether a provision of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment by barring registration of a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure”; and
- an article analyzing a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that “the Federal Circuit failed to use the Supreme Court’s two-step” test for patent eligibility in ChromaDex Inc. v. Elysium Health Inc.
Michael Shaprio wrote an article on Bloomberg Law highlighting how a “former Federal Circuit Judge predicts shake-up on” the Federal Circuit. According to Shapiro, former Judge Kathleen O’Malley spoke at an annual conference organized by the Intellectual Property Association where she pointed out that “there are several judges on that court who are in their 80s or 90s, and that reality is something you all should be paying attention to.”
Catherine Nyarady and Crystal Parker authored an article for Law.com discussing “the pending ‘Vidal v. Elster‘ Supreme Court case and whether a provision of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment by barring registration of a trademark that contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” Nyarady and Parker note that “[t]his case has important implications not only for trademark registrations, but also potentially in determining collisions between trademark rights, rights of publicity, and freedom of speech considerations in future cases.”
Adam Ligett wrote an article for Law360 about a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that “the Federal Circuit failed to use the Supreme Court’s two-step” test for patent eligibility in ChromaDex Inc. v. Elysium Health Inc. According to Ligett, the “petitioners say [the Federal Circuit] created an intra-circuit split by instead using a one-step test it derived from a different Supreme Court eligibility decision known as Myriad.”