Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article in response to “the confirmation hearing last week for John Squires” that discussed “the complex intersection between patent quality, patent examination and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”;
- a blog post indicating that, “[i]n a number of recent opinions, the Federal Circuit decided the case on grounds that were not raised on appeal by either party”;
- a piece detailing how “Amgen Inc’s ongoing challenge to a Colorado Law regulating retail drug prices could serve as a litmus test for widespread state government efforts to keep medication costs low;” and
- a report covering how VLSI Technology LLC’s connection to Fortress Investment Group “will be at the heart of a three-day trial” next week that “could upend infringement verdicts against Intel Corp. totaling more than $3 billion.”
Gene Quinn wrote an article for IP Watchdog in response to “the confirmation hearing last week for John Squires” that discussed “the complex intersection between patent quality, patent examination and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Quinn focused on a comment Squires made “in response to a question from Senator Cruz about the PTAB.” Squires reportedly said, “If you look at the data, the concerns are in plain sight. IPRs have a 68% defect rate; if the American patent system was a factory, 68% of the products we put out are found defective in a later proceeding.” Quinn criticized this comment, saying that “the problem with the low-patent quality narrative is that it just isn’t true.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO indicating that, “[i]n a number of recent opinions, the Federal Circuit decided the case on grounds that were not raised on appeal by either party.” Crouch suggested concern with this approach, thinking “it undermines the adversarial process, creates a fairness problem, and depriv[es] the parties of a meaningful opportunity to address—and potentially correct—issues pivotal to the court’s ultimate determination.”
John Hemmer posted a piece for Law360 detailing how “Amgen Inc’s ongoing challenge to a Colorado Law regulating retail drug prices could serve as a litmus test for widespread state government efforts to keep medication costs low.” Hemmer explained how Amgen’s lawsuit “was initially thrown out in March” but has since been appealed to the Federal Circuit. According to Hemmer, Amgen “is seeking to invalidate Colorado’s statute that established the state’s” Prescription Drug Affordability Board.
Lauren Castle published a report with Bloomberg Law covering how VLSI Technology LLC’s connection to Fortress Investment Group “will be at the heart of a three-day trial” next week that “could upend infringement verdicts against Intel Corp. totaling more than $3 billion.” Castle highlighted how this trial is “the latest step in the marathon litigation that’s crisscrossed federal district courts, an appeals court, an administrative tribunal, and the US Patent and Trademark Office director over much of the last decade.” Castle noted that, while “[t]wo Texas juries separately found Intel infringed VLSI patents,” the Federal Circuit “threw that total in doubt, ruling Intel should be allowed to present its patent-license defense to a jury in a related $2.2 billion dispute.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp.