Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . denied Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revive her constitutional challenge to the judicial misconduct law under which her colleagues suspended her and are continuing to probe her fitness to serve”;
- a blog post indicating a recent petition at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit “presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation”; and
- a commentary addressing a new policy adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that “limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).”
Avalon Zoppo authored an article for Law.com discussing how “[t]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . . . denied Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to revive her constitutional challenge to the judicial misconduct law under which her colleagues suspended her and are continuing to probe her fitness to serve.” Zoppo explained how the D.C. Circuit found it “was bound by its 2001 precedent,” while also highlighting Judge Bradley Garcia’s remark that “Judge Newman has posed important and serious questions about whether these Judicial Conduct and Disability Act proceedings comport with constitutional due process principles and whether her ongoing suspension comports with the structure of our Constitution.”
Rose Esfandiari wrote a blog post for IP Watchdog indicating a recent petition at the Supreme Court in a trademark case decided by the Federal Circuit “presents fundamental questions about whether foreign-language marks should be evaluated based on consumer perception or English translation.” According to Esfandiari, the petition would allow the Court “to clarify how the doctrine of foreign equivalents should be applied and whether it can be reconciled with the Lanham Act’s consumer perception-based approach to trademark protection.” For more information, check out the relevant case page in Vetements Group AG v. Stewart.
David McCombs and Jonathan Bowser authored a commentary published by Reuters addressing a new policy adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that “limits the types of prior art that may be used to challenge patents in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).” They observe the policy “is narrower than recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions that have addressed this issue” and note that the policy is a “benefit to patent owners.”