Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article discussing Judge Newman’s suspension and a “report by Dr. Aaron G. Filler released Tuesday by Newman’s lawyers with the New Civil Liberties Alliance”;
- an article addressing the current state of software patent eligibility “since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l“; and
- a blog post highlighting the Federal Circuit’s recent order granting a petition for en banc rehearing “focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding patent damages.”
Debra Cassens Weiss submitted an article to the ABA Journal discussing Judge Newman’s suspension and a “report by Dr. Aaron G. Filler released Tuesday by Newman’s lawyers with the New Civil Liberties Alliance.” Weiss explains that “[t]he judicial council of the Federal Circuit suspended Newman from hearing new cases for a year in September 2023 and extended the suspension for another year earlier this month” due to “Newman’s refusal to submit to a probe of mental fitness with experts selected by a special committee.” According to Weiss, the report prepared by Dr. Filler, “a neurosurgeon who is also a lawyer and an inventor,” claims that Judge Newman “demonstrates an ‘extraordinarily high level of cognitive ability’ and is ‘cognitively fit to return to active duty.’”
Michael Gulliford submitted an article for IP Watchdog addressing the current state of software patent eligibility “since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.” Gulliford suggests that “the law of subject matter eligibility for software patents has remained an enigma” and that “the Federal Circuit’s Alice test has become a search for technological specificity, different district courts take very different approaches, and the USPTO has charted its own course on the issue.”
Dennis Crouch authored a blog post for PatentlyO highlighting the Federal Circuit’s recent order granting Google’s petition for en banc rehearing “focusing on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding patent damages.” Crouch suggests EcoFactor Inc. v. Google LLC is an important case to the patent community” because it looks to “tie-down damages theories to prevent large damage awards and provide further mechanisms to allow a judge to decide the outcome rather than a jury.” Crouch also notes that “this will be the first en banc utility patent case since 2018.” We reported on this development yesterday.