Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing “a recent decision from the . . . Federal Circuit reinforcing the boundaries of patent eligibility as it concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning models”;
- a blog post covering how the “Office of Personnel Management moved Friday to finalize regulations that collectively seize jurisdiction over thousands of employee appeals, as the federal government’s dedicated HR agency moves to centralize power over the federal workforce”; and
- an article highlighting purported experts as saying that, “while Section 301 is the apparent ‘Plan C’ for enacting tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports, the law gives the president a better legal defense for the duties.”
David Glass and Reilley Keane authored an article for Law360 discussing “a recent decision from the . . . Federal Circuit reinforcing the boundaries of patent eligibility as it concerns artificial intelligence and machine learning models.” The authors highlight the “the juxtaposition of the USPTO’s increasingly permissive stance toward patent eligibility and the Federal Circuit’s rigorous application of the Alice framework.” They say the recent decision “serves as a reminder that applying generic machine learning or deep learning components to a new field of use—here, dental aligner assessment—does not confer patent eligibility.” For more information, check out the relevant opinion in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc.
Erich Wagner published a blog post for Government Executive covering how the “Office of Personnel Management moved Friday to finalize regulations that collectively seize jurisdiction over thousands of employee appeals, as the federal government’s dedicated HR agency moves to centralize power over the federal workforce.” Wagner explains how, “under the new process, appeals would primarily be handled by OPM’s Office of Merit System Accountability and Compliance and ultimately reviewable by the OPM director.” Moreover, he said, “[e]mployees would no longer be able to appeal final agency decisions in federal courts.”
Alyssa Aquino wrote an article published on law.com highlighting purported experts as saying that, “while Section 301 is the apparent ‘Plan C’ for enacting tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports, the law gives the president a better legal defense for the duties.” Aquino notes that Section 301 duties administered in President Trump’s first term “were eventually accepted by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Aquino attributes Joseph Maher with the opinion that Section 301 duties authorized by the Federal Circuit “ultimately strengthened Trump’s hand for his second term.”