Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues”;
- a blog post highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells”;
- an article discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before”; and
- an article commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.”
Michael Shapiro authored an article for Bloomberg Law reporting how recently a “panel of seven appellate and district court judges rejected Judge Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit, where the 98-year-old jurist was suspended by her colleagues.” The article explains how the committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference concluded the Federal Circuit’s “‘renewal of Judge Newman’s suspension is neither contrary to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act’ nor unconstitutional,” and that “the court’s separate decision not to transfer its investigation of Newman to judges in another circuit ‘does not violate her Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process.’”
Eileen McDermott penned a blog post for IPWatchdog highlighting how, on remand from the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (‘Broad’) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells.” McDermott notes how, on remand, the PTAB was again “‘not persuaded that CVC has met its burden as junior party of showing that its inventors conceived of an embodiment of Count 1 before the Broad inventors had reduced the invention to practice.’” For more information on the case at the Federal Circuit, check out our case page in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.
Adam Lidgett authored an article for Law360 discussing how the U.S. International Trade Commission “has launched more infringement investigations over patents and other intellectual property that have not been in dispute there before.” Lidgett highlights how attorneys say this development may be tied to “a decision broadening who can get imports blocked as well as changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that limit patent challenges.”
Blake Brittain authored an article for Reuters commenting on how Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires “faced sharp questions during an oversight hearing at the House of Representatives . . . on his office’s role in benefiting other Trump administration officials.” Brittain, for example, recounts how Rep. Darrell Issa “questioned Squires on whether U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick . . . may have conflicts of interest that could affect the operation” of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and that a “spokesperson for the Commerce Department said that Lutnick has ‘fully complied with the terms of his ethics agreement.’”