Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article suggesting the “Trump administration’s 10% stake in Intel Corp. may give plaintiffs in patent disputes a weapon against the company”;
- a blog post discussing how the “course of the proceedings involving the attempts to remove Judge Pauline Newman from the Federal Circuit is long and in many senses tragic”;
- a blog post observing how “the effective term for most U.S. patents is considerably shorter” than 20 years because “roughly 60% of all patentees now abandon their patents before the full term expires”; and
- an article noting how the “Federal Circuit’s rejection of all mandamus petitions asking it to rein in the way U.S. Patent and Trademark Office leadership is evaluating patent challenges cements the appeals court’s near-impossible standard for reviewing institution decisions.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law suggesting the “Trump administration’s 10% stake in Intel Corp. may give plaintiffs in patent disputes a weapon against the company.” Shapiro explains how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “said last week that partial government ownership of a company can disqualify it from challenging a patent’s validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Shapiro indicates this has raised concerns for Intel, with one former company patent lawyer warning that “‘now the only US manufacturer of advanced semiconductors may not be able to file for inter partes review.’”
Kevin Noonan penned a blog post for Patent Docs discussing how the “course of the proceedings involving the attempts to remove Judge Pauline Newman from the Federal Circuit is long and in many senses tragic.” Noonan notes how Judge Newman filed “a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court” asking whether 28 U.S.C. § 357(c)’s bar on judicial review applies to “ultra vires acts that exceed the scope of authority conferred by the Disability Act and the Constitution” and whether it also blocks claims seeking “forward-looking relief to enjoin future unlawful actions.”
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO observing how “the effective term for most U.S. patents is considerably shorter” than 20 years because “roughly 60% of all patentees now abandon their patents before the full term expires.” Crouch discusses how the “rate of full-term patent maintenance has fallen to approximately 40%, approaching the lowest levels recorded in the past two decades, and the trajectory suggests further decline.” Crouch highlights how the decline coincides with steep increases in maintenance fees, the shift to the 20-year-from-filing patent term, and other factors.
Dani Kass authored an article for Law360 noting how the “Federal Circuit’s rejection of all mandamus petitions asking it to rein in the way U.S. Patent and Trademark Office leadership is evaluating patent challenges cements the appeals court’s near-impossible standard for reviewing institution decisions.” Kass observes how “[c]ompanies . . . had lodged an array of constitutional arguments at the Federal Circuit challenging the high and evolving threshold for having an inter partes or post-grant review instituted.” But the Federal Circuit, Kass explains, has made “clear that there is no constitutional right” to these review proceedings “and that the USPTO director has unlimited discretion on whether to undertake them.”