Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Chestek PLLC that the “US Patent and Trademark Office’s process for making a rule that US applications must disclose a US domicile address . . . didn’t violate federal law”; and
- an article noting how the Federal Circuit judges “split on [the] indefiniteness analysis for [an] identity theft patent.”
Kyle Jahner wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Chestek PLLC that the “US Patent and Trademark Office’s process for making a rule that US applications must disclose a US domicile address . . . didn’t violate federal law.” As explained by Jahner, the Federal Circuit ruled that “the PTO appropriately classified the requirement as a procedural change that didn’t require notice-and-commment rulemaking.” For more coverage of In re Chestek PLLC, see our case page.
Eileen McDermott authored an article for IP Watchdog noting how the Federal Circuit judges “split on [the] indefiniteness analysis for [an] identity theft patent.” As explained by McDermott, Judge Schall dissented-in-part from the Federal Circuit’s holding that “certain claims of a patent for a system to protect against identity theft and fraud were invalid for indefiniteness.” The case is Mantissa Corp. v. First Financial Corp.