Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- a blog post reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit;
- an article arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years”;
- a blog post examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for’”; and
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.”’”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO reporting how Judge Newman “filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court” to review her suspension from exercising judicial duties at the Federal Circuit. Crouch recounts how the petition presents “two independent arguments for why [28 U.S.C.] § 357(c) does not bar judicial review,” including that ultra vires acts exceeding the judicial council’s authority are not protected from review and that Judge Newman seeks “prospective relief enjoining the council” from issuing future unlawful orders.
Christopher Carani, Philipp Ruben, and Sean Sparrow authored an article for Law360 arguing a recent Federal Circuit decision “presents an opportunity to confront doctrinal tensions in design patent law claim construction that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years.” The authors maintain a fundamental problem is the reemergence of “feature filtration” and “claim verbalization.” For more details on the underlying case, check out the relevant opinion in Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co.
Yan Cong authored a blog post for Life Science Blog examining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed an “Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting [a] narrow construction of the claim term ‘configured for.’” Cong explains how a party suggested “configured to” should be construed as “specifically designed to,” and not merely as a structure that is capable of performing a claimed function. Cong points out how the Federal Circuit “found no basis in the claims or written description that ‘configured to’ should be construed to require more than a structure ‘capable of’” a particular function. Cong observes the decision “provides a useful caution on the limits of ‘configured for’, ‘configured to’, and similar terms to impart structure to a product claim to distinguish from prior art products.” For more information on the case, check out the opinion page in In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc.
Zoe Tillman authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how the Federal Circuit “rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay next steps in the fight over tariff refunds for importers.” Tillman points out how the “Justice Department had argued that the appeals court should wait not only for the Supreme Court to finalize its judgment, but also ‘to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.’” According to Tillman, however, “the Federal Circuit took immediate steps to reopen the legal proceedings and send the case back to the U.S. Court of International Trade.” For more information on the underlying case, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.