Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing how a “trio of amicus briefs Thursday threw support behind a cert petition filed last month” seeking to reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Vidal, a patent case.
- an article highlighting Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s appearance at a “conference on Friday to urge more scrutiny into how patent law could affect the development of vaccines and other groundbreaking technologies”; and
- an article noting how amicus briefs were recently filed at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit.
Ryan Davis wrote an article for Law360 discussing how a “trio of amicus briefs Thursday threw support behind a cert petition filed last month” seeking to reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Vidal, a patent case. According to Davis, the “amicus briefs sided with Intel and Edwards’ position,” arguing that “[t]he Federal Circuit wrongly shut down a challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s policy of refusing to review patents based on related infringement litigation.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters highlighting Federal Circuit Judge Newman’s appearance at a “conference on Friday to urge more scrutiny into how patent law could affect the development of vaccines and other groundbreaking technologies.” According to Brittain, Judge Newman “said vaccine patent law was a ‘dominant area’ to be concerned with.”
Eileen McDermott wrote an article for IP Watchdog noting how amicus briefs were recently filed at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit. According to McDermott, these briefs urge “review of a [Federal Circuit] decision that said the USPTO was wrong to reject a trademark application for the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL.” As explained by McDermott, the Federal Circuit held in Vidal v. Elster that the USPTO rejection of the application in question “unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”