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 interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”;
- a report covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit”;
- a blog post indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case; and
- a piece reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.”
Former Federal Circuit Judge Randall Rader authored an article for IP Watchdog discussing “the interaction between the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).” Rader noted “concer[n] about the impact of DOGE on the Agency.” Rader then discussed how, “[o]n the one hand, [DOGE’s] current primary tools . . . need some accommodation to grasp the unique aspects of the USPTO.” But, on the other hand, he continued, it “has stimulated some real thinking and activity to improve efficiency in both examination practices and patent enforcement.”
Michael Shapiro filed a report for Bloomberg Law covering how Judge Newman filed a reply brief “reiterat[ing] her argument the D.C. Circuit should revive the lawsuit challenging as unconstitutional her suspension from hearing cases at the Federal Circuit.” Shapiro pointed out how Newman “has previously argued on appeal that her benching was effectively a removal from her duties” at the Federal Circuit “without constitutionally required impeachment proceedings.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO indicating the Federal Circuit “significantly limited the reach of inter partes review estoppel” in a recent case. Crouch explained how the court “held that a PTAB unpatentability finding cannot create collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) against asserting other claims from the same patent in district court—even if those other claims are materially identical for invalidity purposes.” The relevant opinion, Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., can be found here.
Andrew Karpan issued a piece for Law 360 reporting how the “tech and retail industries are endorsing an effort by Dish Network aiming to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially expand the personal liability of lawyers who file failed patent cases that are found to be ‘exceptional’ by the courts.” Karpan explained how the High Tech Inventors Alliance and the National Retail Federation argue in an amicus brief that “‘[a]llowing the attorney to be held liable is the only reasonable way to enforce [laws] directed at abusive litigation.'” For more information, check out our case page in DISH Network L.L.C. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC.