Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article describing how John Squires, “nominated by President Donald Trump to run the US Patent and Trademark Office,” was scheduled to appear at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday of this week;
- a follow-up article detailing how during his confirmation hearing John Squires said the country’s patent system “is going in the wrong direction”;
- a blog post discussing “a significant development” for practice at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and
- a piece examining the impact of LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, an en banc case that “threw out longstanding tests for determining if design patents are invalid as obvious.”
Aruni Soni filed a report with Bloomberg describing how John Squires, “nominated by President Donald Trump to run the US Patent and Trademark Office,” was scheduled to appear at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday of this week. Soni noted how Squires is “an intellectual property attorney at Dilworth Paxson LLP” with previous experience at three other law firms and was “chief IP counsel at both Honeywell and Goldman Sachs.” Soni also noted how “Squires’ nomination has set tech companies and their lawyers on edge, given his ties to Fortress Investment Group, which often finances patent-infringement cases against major tech companies.”
Michael Shapiro contributed a follow-up article with Bloomberg detailing how during his confirmation hearing John Squires said the country’s patent system “is going in the wrong direction.” Shapiro reported that Squires “pointed to problems with the speed at which patent applications are reviewed” and “expressed a desire to change the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Shapiro recounted how Squires said that “more types of inventions should be patentable in the US” and that the Supreme Court “adopted an overly restrictive test for patent eligibility.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO discussing “a significant development” for practice at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He explained how Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “issued a precedential decision that conclusively establishes” prior consideration of prior art cited in an Information Disclosure Statement “as grounds for discretionary denial” of a petition for inter partes review. Crouch indicated this decision “places a burden on petitioners to demonstrate examiner error in situations” where “the ground for the IPR petition relies upon art that had been formally considered by the examiner during original prosecution.” Crouch suggested the cumulative effect of Director Stewart’s “broader transformation” of PTAB practice “signals a decisive shift towards a more patent-owner friendly posture at the USPTO, with IPR institution rates reportedly dropping significantly over the past two months.”
Ryan Davis wrote a piece for Law360 examining the impact of LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, an en banc case that “threw out longstanding tests for determining if design patents are invalid as obvious.” Davis reported “there are early indications that the courts might not find the ruling as challenging to apply as some observers expected last year.” He also said “litigants have already begun altering their strategies with the LKQ holding in mind.” For more information, check out our case page in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC.