Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article observing how the Federal Circuit is “increasingly using the ‘plainly dissimilar’ formulation to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement in design patent cases”;
- a blog post reporting how “the Bar Association for the District of Columbia (BADC) filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Newman’s petition for cert currently before the U.S. Supreme Court”; and
- an article indicating “[p]atent challengers are increasingly relying on” ex parte reexaminations instead of inter partes reviews.
Nicholas Nowak wrote an article for Law360 observing how the Federal Circuit is “increasingly using the ‘plainly dissimilar’ formulation to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement in design patent cases.” Nowak suggests that “[i]f ‘plainly dissimilar’ is now functioning as a practical substitute for the ordinary-observer test, then design patent doctrine may be inching toward a difference-centered regime that gives accused infringers a meaningful procedural advantage.”
Steve Brachmann penned a blog post for IPWatchdog reporting how “the Bar Association for the District of Columbia (BADC) filed an amicus brief supporting Judge Newman’s petition for cert currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.” Brachmann underscores that “BADC categorized Judge Newman’s suspension as an impeachment requiring Congressional action that ‘deprives our legal community of an experienced and fiercely independent voice in the ongoing weaving of the tapestry of case law at the Federal Circuit.’”
Jonathan Bowser authored an article for Reuters indicating “[p]atent challengers are increasingly relying on” ex parte reexaminations instead of inter partes reviews. Bowser suggests “[t]his shift to EPR is a byproduct of significant policy changes,” including “an increase in discretionary denials of IPRs and the Director solely deciding whether to deny or institute IPRs.”