Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article covering how Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas recently urged Congress to “fix Section 101” before a “tsunami” of artificial intelligence cases raise difficult questions related to patent eligibility;
- an article reporting how “[g]overnment lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court”;
- an article discussing how last week the Federal Circuit “declined to reconsider its test for determining when a design patent is infringed, months after the court’s chief judge harshly criticized the current standard in a case involving body massage tools”; and
- a blog post highlighting how the USPTO “published a Federal Register Notice Tuesday announcing administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin.”
Nisha Shetty authored an article for Law.com covering how Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas recently urged Congress to “fix Section 101” before a “tsunami” of artificial intelligence cases raise difficult questions related to patent eligibility. Shetty interviewed Judge Albright to discuss “the rise and recalibration of the Waco Division, the future of the Western District of Texas after his retirement and the litigation lessons he will take into private practice.”
Mae Anderson penned an article for the Associated Press reporting how “[g]overnment lawyers said a Court of International Trade judge overstepped his authority by ordering the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court.” Anderson highlights how “the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in June and filed its opening brief on Monday.”
Michael Shapiro wrote an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how last week the Federal Circuit “declined to reconsider its test for determining when a design patent is infringed, months after the court’s chief judge harshly criticized the current standard in a case involving body massage tools.” Shapiro reported how Chief Judge Moore said “[t]he test the court has used since 2008 . . . instructs courts to compare a product to a patented design when analyzing infringement in a way that focuses on differences between the two rather than an overall impression of similarity or dissimilarity.” For more, see Range of Motion Prods. LLC v. Armaid Co.
Rose Esfandiari published a blog post for IPWatchdog highlighting how the USPTO “published a Federal Register Notice Tuesday announcing administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin.” Esfandiari notes the GRB “outlines the scientific and technical qualifications required for admission to the registration examination to practice in patent matters before the Office.” According to Esfandiari, the “update moves one Category B degree, Biomedical Science, into Category A, broadening the pool of degrees that automatically qualify an applicant to sit for the patent bar exam.”