Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article reporting on how the Federal Circuit extended the suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing “serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state” and her refusal to comply with the ongoing fitness investigation;
- a blog post highlighting the possible impact of the bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, introduced in Congress this term, on U.S. patent law; and
- an article discussing the evolving nature of standing in patent infringement cases in light of a recent Federal Court decision.
Nate Raymond and Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters reporting on how the Federal Circuit released an order extending the suspension of 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing “serious concerns about Judge Newman’s cognitive state” and her refusal to comply with the ongoing fitness investigation. The authors state that Newman’s attorney and former law clerk, Greg Dolin, called the suspension “entirely unprecedented” and stated that he plans to appeal the decision to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.
Dennis Crouch wrote a blog post for Patently-O highlighting the potential impact of the bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, introduced in Congress this term, on U.S. patent law. He states that the Act was “designed to substantially overturn” two Supreme Court’s decisions governing patent eligibility. According to Crouch, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International have made it “substantially harder to obtain patents and easier to invalidate issued patents” and have sparked confusion in recent Federal Circuit decisions.
Adam G. Kelly, in an article for IP Watchdog, discusses the evolving nature of standing in patent infringement cases, claiming that the requirements “may be difficult to parse” due to “third-party assignments and licensing activities.” Kelly discusses the impact of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intellectual Tech, LLC. v. Zebra Technologies Corporation earlier this year, claiming it is the most recent “in a series of cases clarifying the requirements for when standing is proper.” According to Kelly, the “key takeaway” from Zebra is that “patent owners and assignees may continue to retain their exclusionary rights—and, more importantly, constitutional standing in patent infringement claims—even when other parties also hold certain rights to a patent.”