Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a piece arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36”;
- a blog post discussing how a recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege”;
- a report covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases”; and
- a report covering how a “US Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.”
Ed Nelson III authored a piece for IP Watchdog arguing that “it’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to address” the Federal Circuit’s “excessive use of Rule 36.” Nelson discussed how a recent petition for certiorari asks the Supreme Court to review whether the Federal Circuit’s “use of Rule 36 in appeals from [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] decisions violates Section 144 of the Patent Act, which requires an ‘opinion’ be issued.” He noted how the case has attracted “nine amicus briefs representing thirteen amicus parties.” For more information, check out the relevant case page in ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how another recent petition for certiorari “highlights an interesting procedural quirk in Illinois law that may require Supreme Court intervention to resolve an important state law question about the scope of litigation privilege.” Crouch explained how, after a party “won a $10 million jury verdict under Illinois law for tortious interference and related claims, the Federal Circuit reversed based on Illinois’ absolute litigation privilege.” But, Crouch went on to explain, the losing party “believes the scope of litigation privilege should [have been] referred to the Illinois Supreme Court.” For more information, check out the relevant case page in Toyo Tire Corp. v. Atturo Tire Corp.
Michael Shapiro filed a report for Bloomberg Law covering how the Supreme Court recently declined “to hear a meat slicer company’s challenge to the authority of the Federal Circuit to overturn jury verdicts in patent cases.” Shapiro explained how the petition was filed after a Federal Circuit decision “wiped out a Missouri jury’s $10.5 million verdict for Provisur Technologies Inc. based on alleged infringement by a German rival, Weber Inc.” For more information, check out the case page in Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc.
Annelise Levy published an article with Bloomberg Law discussing how a “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office executive who managed key appeals at the agency’s tribunal and previously served as solicitor accepted President Donald Trump‘s voluntary resignation off[er] for federal employees.” Levy explained how Thomas Krause “was the first to hold the the director review executive position, overseeing requests for the director to reconsider Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions.”