Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an opinion piece suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit;
- a blog post arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law”;
- a blog post discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court”; and
- a blog post examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.”
Mike Davis wrote an opinion piece for Fox News suggesting the Supreme Court “wrongly declined to hear U.S. Circuit Judge Pauline Newman’s” case challenging her suspension from service on the Federal Circuit. Davis takes the position that “[w]hat has happened to her is outrageous, unconstitutional, dangerous, and unacceptable.”
Kristen Osenga penned a blog post for IP Watchdog arguing that, “[w]hen the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act . . . this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law.” Osenga suggests “[t]hey’ll be deciding whether America remains the best place in the world to invent tomorrow’s technologies.” According to Osenga, “Congress has an opportunity to fix what the courts have broken by passing PERA.”
Dennis Crouch published a blog post for PatentlyO discussing how “[t]wo more Section 101 petitions are taking shape at the Supreme Court.” Crouch highlights how “89 petitions for writ of certiorari raising patent eligibility issues have been filed with the Supreme Court since the fall of 2017” and “[n]one. . . have been granted.” For more information on these petitions, you can search for them here on this website.
Tim Ashour authored a blog post for London Insider examining how a recent Federal Circuit “case reaffirms that a patentee’s perceived preference to draft a claim to read on a commercial embodiment . . . may weigh in favour of construing a claim to cover such an embodiment.” According to Ashour, “[l]egal analysts note the ruling also clarifies that the construction of a ratio term will not be rendered indefinite where arguably different measurement methods are used to account for different circumstances.” For more, check out the relevant opinion in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Ltd.