Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing how the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion “affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds”;
- an article reporting how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board was right to fully invalidate a speech recognition patent that Apple stands accused of infringing”;
- an article noting how the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal because “the 30-day deadline of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) for filing a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ with no equitable exceptions”; and
- an article highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal” of a Presidential Innovation Fellow’s “whistleblower appeal . . . , finding he had made sufficient allegations of gross mismanagement to establish jurisdiction.”
Rose Esfandiari authored an article for IPWatchdog discussing how the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion “affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds.” Esfandiari explains how the court agreed “[t]he asserted claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of targeting advertisements to maximize revenue generation.” For more information, check out the opinion in Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC.
Dani Kass filed an article with Law360 reporting how the Federal Circuit recently held that the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board was right to fully invalidate a speech recognition patent that Apple stands accused of infringing.” As explained by Kass, the court indicated the patent owner “failed to show the PTAB erred on claim construction.” For more information, check out the opinion in Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
Dennis Crouch wrote a piece for Patently-O noting how the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal because “the 30-day deadline of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) for filing a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional’ with no equitable exceptions.” According to Crouch, the “[n]otice of appeal timing is a trap for the unwary.” As for why, he explains “[t]he trap is set by confusion over calculating a hard deadline.” For more information, check out the order in Heidary v. Amazon.com Inc.
Regielyn Santiago published an article on Human Resources Director highlighting how the Federal Circuit recently “reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal” of a Presidential Innovation Fellow’s “whistleblower appeal . . . , finding he had made sufficient allegations of gross mismanagement to establish jurisdiction.” Santiago explains how the Fellow “told the Department of Veterans Affairs . . . its AI tool was broken” before “VA fired him.” In the appeal, the court, Santiago recounts, held “his disclosures were ‘detailed and facially well-supported’ – not ‘vague, conclusory or facially insufficient.'” For more information, check out the opinion in Oguntade v. Merit Systems Protection Board.