Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- a report discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis”;
- an article covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time;
- a piece reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36”; and
- an article recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.”
Michael Shapiro filed a report for Bloomberg Law discussing how the neurosurgeon who testified that Judge Newman is “fit to serve . . . responded to a barrage of criticisms aimed at his analysis.” Shapiro explained how, after being called into question, the neurosurgeon recently released a “rebuttal report” claiming that the technique he used to evaluate Judge Newman “represents a technological advance over more traditional cognitive assessments based on standardized questions and observation.” Shapiro further noted how the neurosurgeon claimed that “one of the doctors who critiqued his examination . . . is a champion of the older methods.”
Ava E. Lutz and Travis W. Bliss co-authored an article for Law.com covering how the Federal Circuit recently reviewed a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent and Trademark Office for the first time. The co-authors discussed how the case “also marked the first time, and only time to date, that the director of the [Patent and Trademark Office] has convened the [Appeals Review Board] to review a board decision in an ex parte appeal.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in In re Xencor.
Eileen McDermott wrote a piece for IP Watchdog reporting how the Supreme Court recently denied “several high-profile IP petitions, including two that touch on the [Federal Circuit]’s controversial use of one-word affirmances under Rule 36.” McDermott explained how a theory justifying the Federal Circuit’s “use of Rule 36 is . . . due to the significant increase in cases the CAFC has seen following the America Invents Act’s creation of the PTAB.” That said, she explained, one of the denied petitions argued “a ‘reason-giving’ opinion need not deluge the court and that ‘the Federal Circuit would satisfy [35 U.S.C.] § 144 by issuing a one-paragraph document identifying the grounds for reversal or vacatur that the appellant has raised and stating why they fail.'”
Theresa Schliep issued an article for Law360 recounting how “[a]dministrative judges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should prepare themselves for layoffs, according to an email from Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick.” Schliep described how the “layoffs are seemingly going to be done by seniority.”